/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200525.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 25, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 104

                            Headlines

0325 TUTA CORP: Urena Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
740 ROAST CORP: Morales Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
ACCEL CAPITAL: Faces Bondar TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing
ACCOR HOTELS: Cal. Northern Dist. Narrows Claims in Chose ADA Suit
AGE OF LEARNING: Trujillo Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts

ALASKA: Smith Can't Amend Civil Rights Suit to Add Three Plaintiffs
ALLSTATE LIFE: Faces Holland-Hewitt Suit Over Lapsed Policies
ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Redfield Antitrust Suit Over Sale of E-Cigs
AMAG PHARMA: Barnes Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Settlement in Passenger Capacity Suit Appealed

AMNEAL PHARMA: Clark Says Ranitidine Has Unsafe NDMA Levels
ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Court Defers Ruling on Bid to Dismiss
BADGER MUTUAL: Project Sues Over Denial of COVID Insurance Claims
BANK OF HAWAII: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 6
BED BATH & BEYOND: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Suit

BHAVANI DONUTS: Coleman Seeks Overtime Pay for Retail Employees
BLOOM ENERGY: Court Enters Schedule for Amended Roberts Suit
BLUE DIAMOND: Barajas Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
BLUE DIAMOND: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Barajas Says
BUMBLE BEE: Ex-CEO Presses for Suit Delay to Allow Criminal Appeal

CAL-MAINE FOODS: Illegally Hiked Egg Prices, Bell et al. Say
CALIFORNIA: Impairs Obligation of Rental Contracts, Michie Claims
CANAAN INC: Vincent Wong Law Files Class Action
CARNIVAL CORP: Archer COVID-19 Suit Moved from N.D. to C.D. Cal.
CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Shen & Baig Suit Pending

CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Panther Partners Suit Pending
CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Nix Hook's IPO Class Suit Still Pending
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: March 23 Hearing on Horton Deal Approval Vacated
CBOE GLOBAL: District Court to Hear Appeal from Dismissal Order
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Yattara Sues over Failure to Pay OT Wages

CHAMPION PETFOODS: Court Narrows Claims in Colangelo Suit
CHINA: Faces At Least Four Class-Action Suits Over Coronavirus
CHINA: Missouri Files Class Action Over COVID-19 Pandemic
CHINA: Negligence Results to COVID-19 Crisis, Edwards Suit Claims
CHRYSLER JEEP: Faces Moskowitz TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Marketing

CIMAREX ENERGY: Dodson Seeks Overtime Pay for Workers Under FLSA
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Faces St. Julian Suit in W.D. Michigan
CLARK COUNTY, KY: Ky. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Jones Suit
CLASSIC KOSHER: Avila Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA and NYLL
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Still Defends ERISA Class Suit in New York

COMMUNITY BANK: Claims in Kelly Suit Over Overdraft Fees Narrowed
COMPANIA PANAMENA: Dumitrescu Seeks Refunds for Cancelled Flights
CONNECTICUT: ACLU Mulls Suit vs. DOC Over Coronavirus Death
CONNECTICUT: Fails to Plan for COVID-19 Outbreak, Wilkes Claims
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Denies COVID Insurance Claims, BBMS Alleges

CROWN CASTLE: Continues to Defend Putative Securities Class Suits
CSAA INSURANCE: Misrepresents Homeowners' Policies, Horne Claims
CULLEN/FROST: Frost Bank Faces CARES Act Related Class Suits
DESIGNER BRANDS: Laguardia TCPA Suit Moved From Calif. to Ohio
DOUYU INT'L: Vincent Wong Law Files Class Action

DR. PEPPER: Aguiar Sues over Unjust Termination
DUKE UNIVERSITY: Doe Seeks Tuition Refunds Over COVID-19 Closing
DUTCH POT: Faces Osbourne ADEA Suit Alleging Age Discrimination
EDISON INT'L: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Woolsey Fire
EDISON INT'L: June 15 Bellwether Trial Vacated Due to COVID-19

EHEALTH INC: Bertrand Sues Over 12% Share Price Drop
EHEALTH INC: Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set for June 8
EL MAMBI REST: Maria Seeks Minimum and OT Pay Under FLSA and NYLL
EL POLLO: Settlement Payment Made in Calif. Labor Class Suits
ELECTRICAL BUILDERS: Court Stays Discovery in Raykovitz

ELITE AIRLINE: De Rosario Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
ENEL AMERICAS: Class Suit Against Emgesa Still Ongoing
ENEL AMERICAS: Codensa Pays COP24,400 Million
ERIE INSURANCE: Faces Menns Suit Alleging Breach of Contract
FAIR ISAAC: Monopolizes B2B Credit Score Market, Getten Alleges

FCA US: Conceals Engine Defect to Buyers, Schmid et al. Allege
FCA US: Court Certifies California Class & Subclass in Alger Suit
FCA US: Johnston Sues Over Jeep Engine Oil Consumption Defect
FCA US: Martinez Suit Moved From C.D. California to E.D. Michigan
FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: District of Mass. Dismisses ERISA Fee Suit

FLIK INT'L: $55K Settlement in Clarke Labor Suit Gets Approval
FLIXBUS INC: Serrano Sues in C.D. California Over ADA Violation
FOUNDERS GROUP: Cheng Stockholders Class Suit Removed to D.S.C.
FOX HILLS: Rosales Seeks Unpaid Wages and OT Pay for Employees
GEICO GENERAL: Calif. Court Consolidates Munoz & Subbaiah Suits

GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismisses Quitno Suit Without Prejudice
GENERAL MOTORS: Dawson Suit Moved to Eastern District of Michigan
GENERAL MOTORS: Smith Sues in E.D. Texas Over Defective Shifters
GEORGIA POWER: Class Status Order Vacated
GOSSAMER BIO: Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Motion Set for June 2

GOSSAMER BIO: Schall Law Files Class Action Suit
GRUPO TELEVISA: Still Defends Class Suit Over Alleged FIFA Bribery
H&M: Court Tosses Class Decertification Bid in Lao Case
HIGH LEVEL DEVELOPMENT: Perry Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages
HILCO REDEVELOPMENT: Faces Class Action Over Smokestack Implosion

HOMELAND INSURANCE: 5th Cir. Denies Leave to Appeal in Williams
HSBC BANK: Court Awards $600K Attorney’s Fees
IC SYSTEMS: Carter Sues in D. Arizona Alleging Violation of FDCPA
ICON INFORMATION: Crout Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Workers
INDEPENDENT BANK: Trial in BOH Holdings Merger Suit to Begin 2021

INDEPENDENT ORDER: Fabricant Sues Over Nuisance Telemarketing
INDIAN HEALTH: South Dakota District Dismisses Gilbert Suit
INTEGRATED COMMUNICATION: Randall Suit Seeks Minimum and OT Wages
INTEGRITY FIRE: Landin Suit Challenges Wage Violations Under FLSA
INTELSAT SA: Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Motion Set for June 8

INTELSAT SA: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action Suit
INTERO REAL: Enforcement of Subpoena to Arch in Chinitz Partly OK'd
INVENTION SUBMISSION: Faces Miclaus AIPA Suit Over Promotion Scam
IQIYI INC: Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Motion Set for June 15
IROBOT CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in New York

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Issues Protective Order in Chamlin Suit
JOHNSTON HEALTH: Judgment on Pleadings in Barnard Suit Upheld
KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM: Outzen Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. Ind.
KAY IMPORT: Kim Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
KEVIN ISON: Settlement in Simon Suit FLSA Gets Final Approval

KRAFT HEINZ: Hollywood Police Officers' Retirement Suit Ongoing
KRAFT HEINZ: Osborne Suit v. Employee Benefits Board Underway
KRAFT HEINZ: Union Asset Management Holding AG Suit Ongoing
LANSING TRADE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Budicak Securities Suit
LESA FLORIDA: Torres Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation Under FLSA

LIBERTY OILFIELD: Faces Cobb & Joseph Class Suits in Denver
LIVING THAI: Cuahua Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
LOMA NEGRA: Bid to Dismiss Kohl Putative Class Action Suit Pending
LOMA NEGRA: Class Action Over IEBA Notes Underway
LOMA NEGRA: SDNY Court Tosses Carmona Suit

LOUISIANA FARM: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Franks Suit
LOUISIANA: DOC Faces Class Action Over Covid-19 Inmates at Angola
LOYOLA MARYMOUNT: Shoham Sues to Seek Fees and Tuition Refunds
MAGNA INTERNATIONAL: Breached Fiduciary Duties, Davis et al. Say
MATSU CORP: Court Rules on Conditional Certification in Zhu Suit

MDL 2047: Court Grants Art Edge's Bid to Compel Arbitration
MDL 2672: Bid to Disqualify Judge in VW Clean Diesel Suit Denied
MDL 2672: Guide for Phase One Trial in VW Clean Diesel Suit Entered
MDL 2944: Hyde-Edwards Seeks Consolidation of 10 Cases in Calif.
MEAT HEAD: Underpays Laborers, Boyd Claims

MICHIGAN: Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment Bid in Doe Suit
MIDNIGHT EXPRESS: Bid to Certify Class in Vision Power Suit Denied
MIDNIGHT EXPRESS: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Vision Suit
MISSISSIPPI POWER: Bid to Dismiss Turnage Class Suit Granted
MISSISSIPPI: Waddell Challenges Inadequate Response to COVID-19

MOLSON COORS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Colorado Suit Pending
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Illinois Securities Class Suit Ongoing
NAVIENT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Lord Abbett Fund Class Suit
NBTY INC: Court Stays Alvarez Pending Rule 23(f) Petition Ruling
NEON THERAPEUTICS: Class Suits Challenge BioNTech Merger

NESTLE USA: Bid to Dismiss First Amended Prescott Denied as Moot
NETGEAR INC: Says Settlement Discussions Underway
NEVADA: District of Nevada Certifies Class in HCV Prisoners Suit
NEW JERSEY: Lacks COVID-19 Measures for Prisoners, Wragg Says
NEW MEXICO: Settlement in Duran Prisoners Suit Gets Final Approval

NEW ORLEANS, LA: Lassair Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
NEW YORK: Yang Sues NYSBOE Over Nixed Democratic Primary Election
NORRED & ASSOCIATES: McGinnis Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Pay
NORWEGIAN AIR: Greaves Suit Demands COVID-19 Ticket Cash Refunds
OHIO SECURITY: Hirbod Wants to Receive Proper Insurance Benefits

OPERA LTD: Continues to Defend Brown Class Suit in SDNY
P & Z CAROLINA: Ditsworth Seeks Minimum and OT Wages for Drivers
PACIFIC FERTILITY: No Extension of Trial Schedule in Class Suit
PET SUPERMARKET: Illegally Sells NaturVet Soft Chews, Ferron Says
PET SUPERMARKET: Unlawfully Sells Dog Soft Chews, Newell Says

PG&E CORP: Amended Vataj Complaint Not Yet Received
PG&E CORP: Appeal Filed in Power Shutoff Class Action
PG&E CORP: Appeal Filed in Wild Fire-Related Class Suit
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Awaits Filing of Amended Complaint in Hogan Case
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Continues to Defend Plant Workers' Class Suits

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Dates in Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig. Moved
PRATT INSTITUTE: Faces Hewitt Suit Over COVID-19 Tuition Refunds
PRINCE GEORGE, MD: Seeks Dismissal of Jail Coronavirus Case
PROGRESSIVE COMMERCIAL: Bids to Dismiss Shulman Fraud Suit Granted
PROLOGIS INC: McDonough & Yonchuk Suits Ongoing

R J VAN DRUNEN: Allen Civil Rights Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
RECRO PHARMA: Alberici Securities Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
RINCONCITO SUPERLATINO 4: Puerto Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Inmate Dies of Coronavirus Amid Class Suit
ROSETTA STONE: Stein Sues Over Revision in Cert. of Incorporation

RUSHMORE LOAN: Cooper Sues in S.D. Florida Over FDCPA Violation
RUST-OLEUM CORP: Falsely Markets Krud Kutter Cleaners, Bush Says
RUTGERS: Faces Rocchio Suit Over COVID-19 Tuition & Fees Refunds
SADDLE PEAK: Ross Sues over Wrongful Interference & Termination
SAFECO INSURANCE: Montana District Remands Marshall Insurance Suit

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Ninth Circuit Flips Dismissal of Baird Claims
SAN PEDRO FISH: Alvarado Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages Owed
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Deka Class Action Still Stayed
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Baker Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. Approval
SERVICE CORP: Appeal in Moulton Class Suit Remains Pending

SERVICE CORP: Bernstein Suit Over Sales Practices Resolved
SERVICE CORP: Faces Taylor Class Suit in Florida
SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL: Thornton Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
SIEMENS MOBILITY: Keopadubsy Files Suit in California Super. Ct.
SIX FLAGS: Okla. Firefighters and Local 103 Named Lead Plaintiffs

SIX FLAGS: Still Defends Lawsuits Over Credit Card Info
SIX FLAGS: Still Defends Suit Over Collection of Biometric Data
SK ENERGY: Cleveland Sues Over Illegal Gas Price Fixing Scheme
SMART & FINAL: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Alcazar Alleges
SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Can Compel Arbitration in Sollinger Suit

SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Petition for Review in St. Lucie Suit Pending
SPARK ENERGY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss IUE-CWA 901 Suit
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Refuses COVID-19 Ticket Refund, Diaz Suit Claims
ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY: Patel Demands COVID-19 Tuition Refunds
STATE AUTO: Big Tomato Sues Over Denial to Cover COVID-19 Losses

STERLING JEWELERS: Court Enters Final Judgment in Hudson Labor Suit
STRAFFORD COUNTY, NH: Class Action Seeks Release of ICE Detainees
STRIDES PHARMA: Carlo Says Ranitidine Contains Carcinogens
STUBHUB INC: Kopfmann Seeks Ticket Refunds for Cancelled Events
SUGAR FREAK: Panza Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages Under FLSA

TCA FUND: Faces Todd Benjamin Contract Suit in S.D. Florida
TENNESSEE: TD's Western Challenges Shutting Down of Businesses
TGC ENTERPRISES: Xiong Files Suit in California Superior Court
TIKTOK INC: DM Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometric Identifiers
TIKTOK INC: Faces KM Suit Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Info

TIKTOK INC: SA Sues Over Illegal Collection and Use of Biometrics
TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Denies Coverage of COVID-19 Losses, Real Says
TURK HAVA: Faces Milosevic Suit in N.Y. Over Breach of Contract
TWIN CITY: Refuses to Cover COVID-19 Losses, Cosmetic Laser Says
UNDER ARMOUR: Andrews Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. California

UNITED DRUG: Wrongfully Classifies Employees, Batlle Suit Claims
UNITED STATES: Samma Sues DoD in D.D.C. Alleging Violation of APA
UNITED STATES: SPLC Nationwide Class Suit vs. ICE Gets Green Light
UNITED STATES: Trump Sued Over Coronavirus Aid Discrimination
UNITED STATES: Two Class Action Plaintiffs in ICE Case Released

UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAVEN: Soriano Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
US STEEL: Discovery Ongoing in Class Suit Over Clairton Fire
US STEEL: Discovery Ongoing in Shareholder Class Suit
VAIL RESORTS: Faces Class Action Over Epic Ski Pass
VALARIS PLC: Continues to Defend Zhang Class Suit

VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Johnson Fistel Investigates Securities Claims
VENTURE GLOBAL: Troia Sues Over Failure to Provide COBRA Notice
VIEWRAY INC: Continues to Defend Plymouth County Retirement Suit
VILORE FOODS: Falsely Labels Kern's Beverage Products, Gross Says
VITOL INC: Faces Bogard Construction Consumer Suit in California

VMWARE INC: Deadline on Lead Plaintiff Motion Set for June 1
VMWARE INC: Thornton Law Files Securities Class Action
WASHINGTON: Didier Sues Gov. Inslee Over Civil Rights Violation
WEST BLOOMFIELD, MI: Dismissal of Logan Enrichment Claim Vacated
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS: Restaurant Files Suit on Insurance Coverage

WICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY: Faces Bahnmaier Class Suit in D. Kansas
WILLIS TOWERS: Kent Securities Suit Challenges Acquisition by Aon
WW GRAINGER: Winegard Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
ZOOM VIDEO: Rosen Files Securities Class Action
ZURICH AMERICAN: Big Red Sues Over Denial of Claim for COVID Loss

[*] UK Dentists to Sue Insurers Over Business Interruption Claims
[^] WEBINAR: Best Practices in Qualifying the Class

                            *********

0325 TUTA CORP: Urena Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Alejandro Liriano Urena, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. 0325 TUTA CORP. (D/B/A LA GRAN
ANTILLANA), CALIFORNIA MARKET CORP. (D/B/A LA GRAN ANTILLANA), RAUL
PEGERO, ANDY PEGERO, and MIYIERA DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-03751
(S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2020), is brought for unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The lawsuit is also brought for the Defendants' violations of the
New York Labor Law and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage
orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked, according to the
complaint. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked AND failed to pay the Plaintiff
appropriately for any hours worked either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants
failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for
any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day.

The Plaintiff was employed as a laborer and a delivery worker at
the Defendants' food market.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a food market, located in
New York, under the name "La Gran Antillana."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


740 ROAST CORP: Morales Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Morales, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. 740 ROAST CORP. (D/B/A ROAST KITCHEN), PETER XENOPOULOS
(A.K.A. PETER ZENOPOULOS), ALEXANDER XENOPOULOS, WILLIAM PALOMO,
EDEL LUCERO, and ELA DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-03740 (S.D.N.Y., May 14,
2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime
compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants
failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium.

The Plaintiff was employed as a cook at the Salad Shop.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a salad shop, located in
New York under the name "Roast Kitchen."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


ACCEL CAPITAL: Faces Bondar TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pavel Bondar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ACCEL CAPITAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 1:20-cv-03721 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2020), is
brought against the Defendant to secure redress for violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Through
this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a resident of Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

The Defendant is a business loan provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


ACCOR HOTELS: Cal. Northern Dist. Narrows Claims in Chose ADA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELLE BOGOSIAN CHOSE, Plaintiff, v. ACCOR HOTELS &
RESORTS (MARYLAND) LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-06174-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in
part the Defendant's (i) motion to dismiss and (ii) motion to
strike.

Plaintiff Chose alleges that the Defendant exposed patrons of the
Claremont Club and Spa in Berkeley, California to "dangerous
fragrance" in its lobby, by showering unsuspecting guests/patrons
with substances known to cause respiratory problems, headaches,
skin irritation, and gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and cognitive
problems.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant "piped" these
fragrances in through Claremont's HVAC system without warning, and
without ample regard to the short term, long term and/or
discriminatory impact upon disabled persons.

According to the Plaintiff, studies have shown that such fragrances
may contain chemicals derived from toxic petrochemicals and other
potential carcinogens.  The Plaintiff also notes that she is
particularly sensitive to such fragrances, and when exposed her
throat begins to tighten which gives her the sensation that her
airway has become impeded, and she gets excruciating headaches and
feelings of nausea that continue for many hours.  She alleges that
the Defendant received complaints about its use of the fragrance
and its health effects, but did not discontinue its use at the
Claremont.

On the basis of these facts, the Plaintiff alleges a cause of
action for violation of the American with Disabilities Act ("ADA"),
as well as state law claims for negligence; negligent infliction of
emotional distress ("NIED"); intentional infliction of emotional
distress ("IIED"); violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act
violation of California Health and Safety Code Section 19955(A);
and violation of California's unfair competition law ("UCL").

The Plaintiff also seeks to certify three California classes:

     a. A Personal Injury Class of all persons who visited the
        Claremont Club & Spa between Aug. 28, 2015 and the trial
        of the matter;

     b. An Injunctive Relief Class of all persons who visited the
        Claremont Club & Spa between Aug. 28, 2015 and the trial
        of the matter and seek an order enjoining Defendant from
        releasing fragrances into the air at the Claremont
        Club & Spa; and

     c. A Punitive Damages Class of all persons entitled to
        compensatory damages as a result of the misconduct of
        Defendants with respect to the release of toxic fragrance
        compounds and/or harmful particulate matter at the
        Claremont Club & Spa between Aug. 28, 2015 and the
        trial of the matter.

The Defendant moves to dismiss many of the Plaintiff's state law
claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and to strike
the class action allegations and claim for punitive damages under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).

The Defendant first argues that the Plaintiff's negligence claim
fails because she has not alleged facts supporting a duty to
exercise reasonable care to protect hotel guests from the allegedly
toxic fragrances, nor has she alleged that it breached such a duty
even assuming one existed.

Judge Gilliam holds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the
foreseeability of harm -- and the existence of a duty to protect
patrons -- from purportedly toxic fragrances at the Claremont.
Similarly, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that the Defendant
breached the duty by showering unsuspecting guests/patrons with
substances known to cause respiratory problems, headaches, skin
irritation, and gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and cognitive
problems.  Judge Gilliam understands that the Defendant disagrees
with the existence and foreseeability of any harm from the
fragrances it uses, but he is not tasked with evaluating the
veracity of the Plaintiff's allegations at this stage in the
litigation.  Accepting the Plaintiff's allegations as true, as it
must, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has alleged sufficient
facts for purposes of the motion to dismiss stage.

The Defendant next contends that the Plaintiff's battery claim
fails because she has failed to allege facts supporting the claim
that it intended to harm her with the use of fragrances at the
hotel.  In response, the Plaintiff suggests that for purposes of
her battery claim, she need not allege that Defendant intended to
harm her.

Judge Gilliam finds that People v. Puckett does not provide any
support for the Plaintiff's theory that she need not allege that
the Defendant released fragrances in the lobby with the intent to
harm its patrons.  Because the Plaintiff has not alleged that the
Defendant's use of fragrances at the Claremont was with the intent
to harm or offend her, her battery claim fails.

The Defendant also contends that the Plaintiff has not adequately
pleaded NIED or IIED because the Plaintiff does not adequately
allege that Defendant engaged in "extreme and outrageous conduct"
or that the Plaintiff suffered serious or severe emotional
distress.

Judge Gilliam agrees that the  Plaintiff has not provided
sufficient allegations that she suffered "serious" or "severe"
emotional distress to support her NIED or IIED claims.  The
Plaintiff offers little more than conclusory allegations about the
emotional distress she and putative class members have experienced
due to their exposure to fragrances in the Claremont lobby.  The
Plaintiff does not link these symptoms to any mental anguish,
anxiety, and distress and mental suffering and/or medical,
hospital, psychological and related expenses.  There is simply no
factual support detailing the "substantial quality or enduring
quality" of the Plaintiff's emotional distress and how it was
caused by the Defendant's conduct.  The Plaintiff's allegations of
NIED and IIED are thus inadequate.

Lastly, the Defendant contends that the Plaintiff's UCL claim fails
because she has adequate remedies at law under her other causes of
action and has not alleged sufficient facts demonstrating that she
is entitled to restitution or injunctive relief.  Although monetary
damages may compensate the Plaintiff for her prior visits, there is
ongoing conduct for the Court to enjoin should her prevail on her
claims.  Moreover, the Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief on
behalf of the putative class members who would wish to re-visit the
Claremont if the Defendant ceased using fragrance at the Claremont.
The Judge finds that the Plaintiff may therefore seek injunctive
relief.

Critically, the Plaintiff does not allege that she -- or any other
members of the putative class -- actually paid the Defendant any
money or otherwise has an ownership interest in money from
Defendant such that she is entitled to restitution.  Judge Gilliam
therefore grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
claim for restitution under the UCL.

In addition to its motion to dismiss, the Defendant also moves to
strike the Plaintiff's class allegations and claim for punitive
damages.  First, it argues that the putative class is overbroad;
not ascertainable; and individual questions predominate because
individuals who visited the Claremont may not have any sensitivity
to fragrances.  Second, it also argues that the Plaintiff's claims
for punitive damages should be stricken because she has not
established that it acted with oppression, fraud, or malice.

In keeping with the general practice of disfavoring motions to
strike in that context, Judge Gilliam finds the class allegations
should not be stricken.  Because the motion depends on disputed
questions of fact, it is denied at this early stage in the
litigation.  The class allegations may be addressed at the class
certification stage.  The Judge then finds that because he has
dismissed the state tort claims as insufficiently pled, he strikes
the Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages, unless and until she
adequately pleads a predicate claim.

Accordingly, Judge Gilliam granted in part the motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's claims for battery, NIED, and IIED, as well as the
Plaintiff's claim for restitution under the UCL, but otherwise
denied the motion to dismiss.  The Judge granted in part the motion
to strike the Plaintiff's claim for putative damages, but otherwise
denied the motion to strike.  The Judge understood the Defendant's
misgivings that the Plaintiff will be able to amend her complaint
to address the deficiencies identified.  Nevertheless, he cannot
say at this stage that amending the complaint would be futile.  The
Judge therefore set a case management conference.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/W2Cm3L from Leagle.com.

Michelle Bogosian Chose, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Daniel
Weaver -- aweaver@scalaw.com -- Scott Cole and Associates, APC &
Scott Edward Cole -- scole@scalaw.com -- Scott Cole & Associates,
APC.

Accor Hotels & Resorts (Maryland) LLC, Defendant, represented by A.
Marisa Chun -- mchun@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring, LLP & Rebecca
M. Suarez -- rsuarez@crowell.com -- Crowell and Moring LLP.


AGE OF LEARNING: Trujillo Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Trujillo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AGE OF LEARNING, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-01032 (C.D. Cal., May 14, 2020), is
brought to stop the Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by sending unsolicited, autodialed text messages to
consumers, and to obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all
persons injured by its conduct.

The Defendant's affiliates and third-party sales agents rely on
telemarketing in order to market the Defendant's services,
including the sending of text messages. These text messages are
being sent to consumers using an autodialer without obtaining prior
express written consent.

The Defendant or an agent working on behalf of the Defendant sent
an unsolicited, autodialed sales text message to the Plaintiff. In
response to this text message, the Plaintiff files this class
action lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, requiring the Defendant
and/or its agents to cease placing unsolicited, autodialed phone
calls to cellular telephone numbers, as well as an award of
statutory damages to the members of the Class.

Plaintiff Trujillo is an Apple Valley, California resident.

Age of Learning develops and produces digital learning content for
children.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J Schwartz, Esq.
          ADAM J SCHWARTZ, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          5670 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1800
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Phone: (323) 455-4016
          Email: adam@ajschwartzlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Phone: (720) 213-0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
          Email: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
                 swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com


ALASKA: Smith Can't Amend Civil Rights Suit to Add Three Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DENALI NICOLE SMITH, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL DUNLEAVY,
in his official capacity of Governor of the State of Alaska, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-0298-HRH (D. Alaska), Judge H.
Russell Holland of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Alaska (i) denied Smith' motion to amend her complaint to add three
Plaintiffs, and (ii) substituted the Acting Commissioner of Revenue
(Alaska), Mike Barnhill, as a Defendant in place of Commissioner
Bruce Tangeman.

The case arises out of the Defendants' denial of the Plaintiff's
eligibility for the 2019 Permanent Fund Dividend ("PFD").  The
Plaintiff alleges that she was denied eligibility for the 2019 PFD
because she is a woman married to a woman who is a member of the
Armed Forces of the United States.  In her complaint, the Plaintiff
asserts Section 1983 due process and equal protection claims
against the Defendants.

A scheduling and planning order was entered in the case on Dec. 27,
2019.  The scheduling order expressly provided that motions to
amend pleadings, including motions to add parties, will be served
and filed not later than Feb. 28, 2020.  The instant motion was
timely filed, and the Court takes seriously its obligation to
freely give leave to amend.  However, the instant motion is
problematic.

First, the Plaintiff seeks to add three Plaintiffs, Megan Hodge and
her two minor children.  In the proposed amended complaint, she
asserts that Hodge and the two minor children were denied
eligibility for the 2019 PFD because Hodge is a woman married to a
woman who is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States. In
the proposed amended complaint, the Hodges assert Section 1983 due
process and equal protection claims and seek damages, injunctive,
and declaratory relief.

Judge Holland holds that amendment to add the Hodges as the
Plaintiffs would be futile.  First, to the extent that the proposed
amended complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of the Hodges,
such a claim is futile under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 inasmuch as the
Defendants are sued in their official capacities, not individually.
Second, to the extent that the Hodges are seeking payment of their
2019 PFDs and any appeal fees, such a claim is futile because the
Hodges have already received that relief.  The proposed amended
complaint does not adequately allege the avoidance of mootness as
to the Hodges' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief because
the Defendants' alleged conduct is likely to be repeated and avoid
review.

In her reply, the Plaintiff argues that adding the Hodges as
Plaintiffs would not be futile because the action is to enforce the
court's Oct. 12, 2014 order as to the Plaintiffs and all others
similarly situated.  Based upon what is before the Court at this
point, it appears to the Court that the Plaintiff is trying to
institute a class action without alleging any of the prerequisites
and without identifying the type of class action being brought.
Thus, to the extent that the Plaintiff is arguing that amending to
add the Hodges as Plaintiffs would be appropriate because the case
is a class action, that argument fails.

Second, the Plaintiff seeks to amend her complaint to articulate
the remedies requested with greater specificity.  She does not
explain what exactly it means, but the proposed amended complaint
appears to signal an attempt and purpose to grandly expand the
constitutional claims originally made.  By the proposed amended
complaint, the Plaintiff(s) would apparently seek to require the
production of information about the denial of marriage licenses by
the state, the denial of medical benefits by the state, and the
denial of retirement benefits by the state to persons in same-sex
marriages.

On the basis of what is presently before the Court, the Court is
unpersuaded that either the Plaintiff or the proposed new
Plaintiffs would have standing to bring claims based upon a refusal
to issue marriage licenses or afford state employees' other
benefits.  Thus, the proposed amendment would be futile.

For these reasons, Judge Holland denied the Plaintiff's motion to
amend.  Mike Barnhill, in his official capacity as Acting
Commissioner of the Department of Revenue, State of Alaska, is
substituted for Bruce Tangeman.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/6P6IHu from Leagle.com.

Denali Nicole Smith, on behalf of herself and others similary
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin Shortell --
cs.sgalaw@gmail.com -- Shortell Gardner & Heather Leigh Gardner --
hgardnerlaw@gmail.com -- Heather Gardner Attorney at Law LLC.

Michael Dunleavy, in his official capacity of Governor of the State
of Alaska, Kevin Clarkson, in his official capacity as Attorney
General of the State of Alaska, Anne Weske, in her official
capacity as Director of the Permanent Fund Division, State of
Alaska, Department of Revenue & Mike Barnhill, in his official
capacity as Acting Commissioner of the Department of Revenue, State
of Alaska, Defendants, represented by Rebecca H. Cain, Office of
the Attorney General, Civil Division Department of Law.


ALLSTATE LIFE: Faces Holland-Hewitt Suit Over Lapsed Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN L. HOLLAND-HEWITT, Individually, and as agent and
attorney-in-fact to James L. Holland, and on Behalf of the Class v.
ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-00652-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal., May 8, 2020), alleges that
Allstate refuses to comply with mandatory provisions of the
California Insurance Code, as well as California common law,
regulating the lapse and termination of life insurance policies.

Since January 1, 2013, Allstate and other related entities have
systematically and purposely failed to provide certain classes of
policy owners, insureds, assignees and others, proper notices of
pending lapse or termination, according to the complaint. Allstate
has refused to provide required grace periods. Allstate has also
failed to notify thousands of policy owners of their right to
designate someone to receive critical notices and information
regarding life insurance, despite being required to do so on an
annual basis.

As a result, Allstate has failed to properly administer policies,
evaluate the status of payments due under policies and pay claims
to beneficiaries for policies improperly lapsed or terminated, the
Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff adds that the Defendant has
allegedly robbed thousands of their customers and beneficiaries of
the investment in such policies, policy benefits as well as the
security intended to be provided from such insurance.

The Plaintiff has been a beneficiary of the life insurance policy
insuring her father, James L. Holland.

Allstate sells life insurance in California, Allstate was the
insurer responsible for administering and honoring the Plaintiff's
policy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
          Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org

               - and -

          Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
          Georg M. Capielo, Esq.
          Sarah Ball, Esq.
          WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
          8489 La Mesa Boulevard
          La Mesa, CA 91942
          Telephone: (619) 234-9000
          Facsimile: (619) 750-0413
          E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
                  gcapielo@einsurelaw.com
                  sball@einsurelaw.com


ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Redfield Antitrust Suit Over Sale of E-Cigs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Redfield and Albert Riccelli, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC., and JUUL LABS,
INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-03288 (N.D. Cal., May 14, 2020), is bought
against the Defendants concerning anticompetitive agreements
between them, in violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and
Section 7 of the Clayton Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that Altria agreed to refrain from competing
against Juul in the United States market for closed-system
electronic cigarettes in return for a substantial ownership
interest in Juul.

In light of declining sales in the market for traditional
cigarettes and a shift by consumers to alternative nicotine
delivery devices, Altria viewed participation in the e-cigarette
market as essential to its long-term survival, according to the
complaint. In 2013, Altria entered the market through its
subsidiary Nu Mark LLC. Its flagship product was the MarkTen e
cigarette. In 2015, Juul entered the market and quickly captured
substantial market share. By 2018, Juul had obtained market share
of over 70 percent, stunning Altria and other competitors. Juul's
swift rise posed a grave competitive threat to Altria in both the
e-cigarette and traditional cigarette markets. To eliminate that
threat, Altria began a two-prong strategy of acquiring Juul, while
continuing to compete against it. Its efforts to acquire Juul were
unsuccessful initially.

With respect to competition, Altria introduced a new product known
as the MarkTen Elite, which closely resembled Juul's product. With
respect to acquisition, Altria entered into negotiations to acquire
an ownership interest in Juul. Initially, Juul refused to
negotiate. But in the fall of 2018, Juul agreed to negotiate with
Altria, under the condition that Altria stop competing with Juul in
the market for e-cigarettes, according to the complaint. In
particular, Juul refused to proceed with negotiations unless and
until Altria had withdrawn its products. At first, Altria refused.
In October 2018, however, Altria agreed and began to withdraw its
e-cigarette products from the market. Two months later in December
of 2018, Altria announced its intention to cease competing entirely
in the relevant market. Approximately two weeks after making this
announcement, Altria disclosed that, on October 20, 2018, it had
entered into certain agreements with Juul.

The agreements between Altria and Juul whereby Altria and Juul
agreed to allocate the market for e-cigarettes were
anticompetitive, the Plaintiffs assert. The Plaintiffs contend that
the Defendants' conduct has illegally restrained competition in the
relevant market in violation of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. As a
direct and proximate result of the Defendants' anticompetitive
conduct, prices for e-cigarettes were raised, fixed and stabilized
at supracompetitive levels, the Plaintiffs add.

According to the complaint, Altria's investment in Juul and its
exit from the market eliminated its existing e-cigarette product
and halted its ongoing innovation efforts toward developing new and
improved products. Thus, consumers lost the benefit of current and
future head-to-head competition between Altria and Juul, and
between Altria and other competitors.

The Plaintiffs purchased Juul products directly from Juul during
the relevant period.

Altria is one of the country's largest tobacco companies and was,
prior to the anticompetitive agreements alleged, a manufacturer of
closed system e-cigarettes.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq.
          Anupama K. Reddy, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                 swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
                 kquackenbush@saverilawfirm.com
                 areddy@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
          EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Phone: (215) 867-2399
          Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
          Email: medelson@edelsonlaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
          GRABAR LAW OFFICE
          1735 Market Street, Suite 3750
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 267-507-6085
          Facsimile: (267) 507-6048
          Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com


AMAG PHARMA: Barnes Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, Southwestern Division, granted the
parties' joint motion to transfer venue to the District of New
Jersey the case MARY JO BARNES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; Plaintiff, v. AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-05088-CV-RK (W.D. Mo.).

In the consumer class action, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself
and a putative class of similarly situated individuals, asserts
claims for violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act
("MMPA") and unjust enrichment based on allegations that AMAG
misrepresented the effectiveness of its prescription drug Makena.
Specifically, the Plaintiff has identified several statements on
AMAG's website and in its patient education brochure for Makena
that she contends misrepresent the drug's effectiveness at
preventing preterm births.

The Plaintiff's counsel has filed four other class action lawsuits
in other federal courts asserting claims under other states' unfair
trade practices statutes and claims of unjust enrichment based on
nearly identical allegations.  For the purposes of convenience of
the parties, judicial economy, and to eliminate the risk of
inconsistent rulings, the parties now seek to transfer the case to
the District of New Jersey, where one of the cases is currently
pending.

Considering the convenience of the parties, the convenience of the
witnesses, the interests of justice, and other relevant factors,
Judge Ketchmark finds transfer to the District of New Jersey is
proper.  As an initial matter, she finds all five of the putative
class action cases involve the same Defendant, AMAG.  The cases
also involve common questions of law and fact.  Each case involves
similar allegations against AMAG, namely that AMAG misrepresented
the effectiveness of its drug Makena.

As to the convenience of the witnesses, while there is a slight
risk that witnesses may be inconvenienced, the parties have
represented to the Court that most of the witnesses in this case
are located in Massachusetts.  The parties have further represented
that if any deponents reside in Missouri, such depositions will
take place in Missouri.  Thus, transferring the case will not
significantly inconvenience any witness.  Finally, although the
action involves claims under Missouri law, federal courts are
capable of applying the substantive law of other states.
Therefore, considering the consent of the parties and the relevant
factors, Judge Ketchmark finds transfer to the District of New
Jersey proper.

After careful consideration, Judge Ketchmark concludes transferring
the case to the District of New Jersey is warranted.  Therefore,
the parties joint motion to transfer venue is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/N5kkSe from Leagle.com.

Mary Jo Barnes, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Sean Cooper -- Sean@PaulLLP.com
-- Paul LLP & Ashlea Schwarz -- Ashlea@PaulLLP.com -- Paul LLP.

AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian C.
Fries -- brian.fries@lathropgpm.com -- Lathrop GPM LLP.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Settlement in Passenger Capacity Suit Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that three objectors to
the settlement in the class action related to passenger capacity
have taken an appeal from the preliminarily approval order entered
by the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia.

The company along with Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines
Co., United Airlines, Inc. and, in the case of litigation filed in
Canada, Air Canada, were named as defendants in approximately 100
putative class action lawsuits alleging unlawful agreements with
respect to air passenger capacity.

The U.S. lawsuits were consolidated in the Federal District Court
for the District of Columbia (the DC Court).

On June 15, 2018, the company reached a settlement agreement with
the plaintiffs in the amount of $45 million to resolve all class
claims in the U.S. lawsuits. That settlement was approved by the DC
Court on May 13, 2019, however three parties who objected to the
settlement have appealed that decision to the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

American Airlines said, "We believe these appeals are without merit
and intend to vigorously defend against them."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

American Airlines Group Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as
a network air carrier. It provides scheduled air transportation
services for passengers and cargo. American Airlines Group Inc. was
founded in 1934 and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.


AMNEAL PHARMA: Clark Says Ranitidine Has Unsafe NDMA Levels
-----------------------------------------------------------
RENEE CLARK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:20-cv-05350-FLW-TJB (D. N.J., April 30, 2020) is a class
action lawsuit regarding Amneal's manufacturing of ranitidine-based
prescription medications that contain dangerously high levels of
N-nitrosodimethylamine ("NDMA"), a carcinogenic and liver-damaging
impurity.

Ranitidine is an over-the-counter and prescription medication that
is designed to decrease the amount of acid created by the stomach.
Ranitidine is intended to be used for the treatment of heartburn
associated with indigestion and sour stomach. However, Amneal's
manufacturing process has caused its ranitidine medications to
contain dangerously high levels of NDMA.

On September 13, 2019, the FDA issued a statement announcing the
presence of NDMA in ranitidine-containing medications. The FDA's
notice states that "NDMA is classified as a probable human
carcinogen (a substance that could cause cancer) based on results
from laboratory tests." Since then, the FDA's own testing "has
found unacceptable levels of NDMA in samples of ranitidine."

According to the complaint, the Defendant breached the warranty
implied in the contract for the sale of the defective ranitidine
medications because they could not pass without objection in the
trade under the contract description, the ranitidine medications
were not of fair or average quality within the description, and the
ranitidine medications were unfit for their intended and ordinary
purpose because the ranitidine medications manufactured,
distributed, and sold by Defendant were defective in that they
contained elevated levels of carcinogenic and liver-toxic NDMA, and
as such are not generally recognized as safe for human consumption.
As a result, Plaintiff and members of the Class and Vermont
Subclass did not receive the goods as impliedly warranted by
Defendant to be merchantable.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC is a New Jersey-based pharmaceutical
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          Vermont, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          Email: jmarchese@bursor.com
                 aobergfell@bursor.com

                    - and -

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.  
          2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 220
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: swestcot@bursor.com

ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Court Defers Ruling on Bid to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------
ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the trial court has
deferred its ruling on the motion to dismiss the class action suit
entitled, In re JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder
Litigation (Case No. 24-C-16-001542) for six months.

Nine putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the tender offer (the "Tender Offer") and merger (the
"Merger") for JAVELIN. The Tender Offer and Merger are collectively
defined herein as the "Transactions."

All nine suits name ARMOUR, the previous members of JAVELIN's board
of directors prior to the Merger (of which eight are current
members of ARMOUR's board of directors) (the "Individual
Defendants") and JMI Acquisition Corporation ("Acquisition") as
defendants.

Certain cases also name ARMOUR Capital Management LP (ACM) and
JAVELIN as additional defendants. The lawsuits were brought by
purported holders of JAVELIN's common stock, both individually and
on behalf of a putative class of JAVELIN's stockholders, alleging
that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed
to the plaintiffs and the putative class of JAVELIN stockholders,
including claims that the Individual Defendants failed to properly
value JAVELIN; failed to take steps to maximize the value of
JAVELIN to its stockholders; ignored or failed to protect against
conflicts of interest; failed to disclose material information
about the Transactions; took steps to avoid competitive bidding and
to give ARMOUR an unfair advantage by failing to adequately solicit
other potential acquirors or alternative transactions; and erected
unreasonable barriers to other third-party bidders.

The suits also allege that ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and Acquisition
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Individual Defendants.

The lawsuits seek equitable relief, including, among other relief,
to enjoin consummation of the Transactions, or rescind or unwind
the Transactions if already consummated, and award costs and
disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.

The sole Florida lawsuit was never served on the defendants, and
that case was voluntarily dismissed and closed on January 20, 2017.


On April 25, 2016, the Maryland court issued an order consolidating
the eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned In re JAVELIN
Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Case No.
24-C-16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the Maryland
cases as interim lead co-counsel.

On May 26, 2016, interim lead counsel filed the Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
asserting consolidated claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding
and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty, and waste.

On June 27, 2016, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for failing to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.

A hearing was held on the Motion to Dismiss on March 3, 2017, and
the Court reserved ruling. On September 27, 2019 the court further
deferred the matter for six months. No further action has been
taken.

Each of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and the Individual Defendants intends
to defend the claims made in these lawsuits vigorously; however,
there can be no assurance that any of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM or the
Individual Defendants will prevail in its defense of any of these
lawsuits to which it is a party.

ARMOUR said, "An unfavorable resolution of any such litigation
surrounding the Transactions may result in monetary damages being
awarded to the plaintiffs and the putative class of former
stockholders of JAVELIN and the cost of defending the litigation,
even if resolved favorably, could be substantial. Due to the
preliminary nature all of these suits, ARMOUR is not able at this
time to estimate their outcome.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. invests in residential mortgage
backed securities in the United States. The company is managed by
ARMOUR Capital Management LP. The company was founded in 2008 and
is based in Vero Beach, Florida.


BADGER MUTUAL: Project Sues Over Denial of COVID Insurance Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT LION LLC, d/b/a CRUSH d/b/a GREEK SNEEK, PROJECT M LLC
d/b/a LA COMIDA, and PROJECT W LLC, d/b/a LA CAVE, Individuallyand
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. BADGER MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00768-JAD-VCF (D. Nev., April
28, 2020), asserts claims against the Defendant for denying the
obligation to pay for business income losses and other covered
expenses incurred by policyholders for the physical loss and damage
to their insured property from measures put in place by the civil
authorities to stop the spread of COVID-19 among the population.

This action seeks a declaratory judgment that affirms that the
COVID-19 pandemic and the corresponding response by civil
authorities to stop the spread of the outbreak triggers coverage,
has caused physical property loss and damage to the insured
property, provides coverage for future civil authority orders that
result in future suspensions or curtailments of business
operations, and finds that Defendants are liable for the losses
suffered by policyholders.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a proposed class of
policyholders, who paid premiums in exchange for business insurance
policies that included lost business income and extra expense
coverage. The Defendant had issued all-risk commercial property
insurance policies with business interruption coverage to the
Plaintiffs and other insureds.

On March 11, 2020, World Health Organization Director General
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared the COVID-19 outbreak a
worldwide pandemic. On March 16, 2020, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, and members of the national Coronavirus
Task Force issued to the American public guidance, styled as "30
Days to Slow the Spread" for stopping the spread of COVID-19. As a
result, many governmental entities entered civil authority orders
suspending or severely curtailing business operations of
non-essential businesses that interact with the public and provide
gathering places for the individuals.

Badger Mutual operates as an insurance company. The Company offers
automobile, homeowners, and renters insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David C. O'Mara, Esq.
          THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, P.C.
          311 E. Liberty Street
          Reno, NE 89501
          Telephone: 775 323 1321
          E-mail: david@omaralaw.net

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700

               - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS
          Water Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone (631) 367-7100


BANK OF HAWAII: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of Hawaii Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a hearing to consider
final approval of the settlement in the class action suit related
to the assessment of Overdraft Fees is set for July 6, 2020.

On September 9, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by
a Bank customer primarily alleging Bank of Hawaii's practice of
determining whether consumer deposit accounts were overdrawn based
on "available balance" (which deducts debit card transactions that
have taken place but which have not yet been posted) was not
properly applied or disclosed to customers.

On October 16, 2019, the Bank reached a tentative settlement with
the named plaintiff, subject to documentation and court approvals.


The settlement provides for forgiveness of certain related and
previously charged off overdraft fees, and a payment by the Company
of $8.0 million into a class settlement fund the proceeds of which
will be used to refund class members, and to pay attorneys' fees,
administrative and other costs, in exchange for a complete release
of all claims asserted against the Company.  

The Company had an $8.0 million reserve relating to this claim, as
of March 31, 2020.

On March 12, 2020, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.

A court hearing for final approval of the settlement is set for
July 6, 2020.

Bank of Hawaii Corporation is a Delaware corporation and a bank
holding company headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii.


BED BATH & BEYOND: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, an international shareholder and
consumer rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class
action lawsuit against Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (NASDAQ: BBBY) and
other defendants related to alleged violations of federal
securities laws.  If you purchased Bed Bath & Beyond securities
between October 2, 2019 and February 11, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), you are encouraged to contact Scott+Scott attorney
Rhiana Swartz for additional information at (844) 818-6980 or
rswartz@scott-scott.com.

Bed Bath & Beyond is a chain of domestic merchandise retail
stores.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company lacked
sufficient inventory to support holiday sales; (2) the Company's
internal inventory controls were ineffective; and (3) as a result,
the Company was likely to experience reduced sales.

On January 8, 2020, Bed Bath & Beyond withdrew its guidance for
fiscal year 2019, purportedly due to pressures on sales and
profitability, as well as a new strategic plan for the Company's
operations.

Following this news, the Company's share price fell $3.20, or over
19%, to close at $13.45 per share on January 9, 2020.

Then, on February 11, 2020, Bed Bath & Beyond issued a press
release disclosing "a 5.4% decline in comparable sales driven
primarily by store traffic declines combined with inventory
management issues," including that "inventory within certain key
categories in the Bed Bath & Beyond assortment was too low or
out-of-stock during the period."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.06 per share, or
over 20%, to close at $11.79 per share on February 12, 2020.

What You Can Do

If you purchased Bed Bath & Beyond securities between October 2,
2019 and February 11, 2020, or if you have questions about this
notice or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney
Rhiana Swartz at (844) 818-6980 or rswartz@scott-scott.com.  The
lead plaintiff deadline is June 15, 2020.

Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP has significant experience in
prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement
plan actions throughout the United States.  The firm represents
pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities
worldwide with offices in New York, London, Connecticut,
California, and Ohio.

Contact:

         Rhiana Swartz
         Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
         230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169-1820
         Tel: (844) 818-6980
         E-mail: rswartz@scott-scott.com [GN]


BHAVANI DONUTS: Coleman Seeks Overtime Pay for Retail Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
TORI COLEMAN c/o her attorneys Tittle & Perlmuter 2012 West 25th
Street, Ste. 716 Cleveland, OH 44113 On behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BHAVESH D. PATEL 7825
Mentor Avenue Mentor, OH 44060 JAYESH D. PATEL 7727 Lucretia Court
Mentor, OH 44060 GHANSHYAM PATEL c/o Janki Donuts, Inc. 26963
Lorain Road North Olmstead, Ohio NILAYKUMAR PATEL 34188 Euclid
Avenue, B21 Willoughby, OH 44094 SHAILESH PATEL 34188 Euclid
Avenue, B21 Willoughby, OH 44094 BHAVANI DONUTS, INC.  7825 Mentor
Avenue Mentor, OH 44060 and c/o its Statutory Agent, Bhavesh D.
Patel 7825 Mentor Avenue Mentor, OH 44060 CHARDON DONUTS, INC. 370
Center Street Chardon, Ohio 44024 and c/o its Statutory Agent
Bhavesh D. Patel 7825 Mentor Avenue Mentor, OH 44060 EUCLID DONUTS,
INC. c/o its Statutory Agent Bhavesh D. Patel 7825 Mentor Avenue
Mentor, OH 44060 JANKI DONUTS, INC. 26963 Lorain Road North
Olmstead, Ohio 44070 and c/o its Statutory Agent Jayesh D. Patel
7727 Lucretia Court Mentor, OH 44060 LAKESHORE DONUTS, INC. 7742
Lakeshore Boulevard Mentor, Ohio 44060 and c/o its Statutory Agent
Bhavesh D. Patel 7825 Mentor Avenue Mentor, OH 44060 MANKI DONUTS,
INC. 1528 West 117th St. Lakewood, Ohio 44107 and c/o its Statutory
Agent Bhavesh D. Patel 7825 Mentor Avenue Mentor, OH 44060 NIYATI
ENTERPRISE, LLC  2801 Bishop Road Willoughby Hills, Ohio 44092 and
c/o its Statutory Agent Bhavesh D. Patel 7825 Mentor Avenue Mentor,
OH 44060 SHIV DONUTS, INC. 2080 Snow Road Parma, Ohio 44134 and c/o
its Statutory Agent Tapan Patel 2080 Snow Road Parma, OH 44134 SHRI
BOOT MAA CORP. 255 Richmond Street Painesville, OH 44077 and c/o
its Statutory Agent Jayesh D. Patel 255 Richmond Street
Painesville, OH 44077 VISHNU DONUTS CORP. 355535 Euclid Avenue,
Unit 1 Willoughby, OH 44094 and c/o its Statutory Agent Shailesh
Patel 34188 Euclid Avenue, B21 Willoughby, OH 44094, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00925 (N.D. Ohio, April 30, 2020) arises from the
practices of Defendants by which they willfully violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as well as the Ohio Constitution, the
Ohio overtime compensation statute, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act
after failing to pay Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins, and all
members of the Ohio Class, overtime compensation at the rate of one
and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek.

Plaintiff Tori Coleman worked for Defendants as a non-exempt
employee from December 24, 2017 through April 11, 2019. Ms. Coleman
worked for Defendants in the store located in Willoughby, Ohio.

Defendants operate Dunkin' stores that sell coffee, donuts, and
other products to retail customers. Defendants operate at least ten
such stores in northeast Ohio and are believed to have several
other stores within the state as well.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
          TITTLE & PERLMUTER
          2012 West 25th Street, Suite 716
          Cleveland, OH  44113
          Telephone: (216) 308-1522
          Facsimile: (888) 604-9299
          Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com

                    - and -

          Thomas A. Downie, Esq.
          46 Chagrin Falls Plaza #104
          Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
          Telephone: (440) 973-9000
          Email: tom@chagrinlaw.com

BLOOM ENERGY: Court Enters Schedule for Amended Roberts Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELISSA M. ROBERTS, Individually and on Lead Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BLOOM ENERGY
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02935-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California has entered an order regarding
the schedule for amended complaint and the Defendants' response.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12, the parties to the action
stipulate to and respectfully request the Court to enter the
schedule below regarding amendment of the current complaint and
responses thereto in light of certain recent developments.

On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff Roberts filed a federal securities class
action against Defendants Bloom Energy, KR Sridhar, Randy Furr, L.
John Doerr, Scott Sandell, Eddy Zervigon, Colin L. Powell, Peter
Teti and Mary K. Bush and Kelly A. Ayotte.

On Sept. 3, 2019, following the briefing of the Lead Plaintiff
motions, the Hon. William H. Orrick appointed James Everett Hunt as
the Lead Plaintiff, and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as the Lead Counsel.

On Nov. 1, 2019, Lead Plaintiff filed a Motion to Limit Scope of
Confidentiality Agreement.

On Nov. 4, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint for
Violations of the Federal Securities Laws.  Her Amended Complaint
alleges violations of the federal securities laws under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and names, in addition to
the original Defendants, the following entities as additional
defendants in a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933: J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Cowen & Company, LLC,
HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Raymond James &
Associates, Inc., and Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated
("Underwriter Defendants").

The District Court, in a stipulation and order dated December 30,
2019, a full-text copy of which is available at
https://tinyurl.com/tweb7ju from Leagle.com, ordered that oral
argument on the Confidentiality Motion will be heard on the Court's
February 13, 2020 calendar at 2:00 p.m.

On Feb. 12, 2020, prior to the Defendants responding to the
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Bloom Energy issued a press release
providing an update on the timing of its fourth quarter and full
year 2019 earnings report and announcing that it will restate its
financial statements for certain periods when it issues its Form
10-K on March 16, 2020.

Following Bloom Energy's announcement, the Plaintiff notified the
Defendants that he intended to amend the Amended Complaint once
Bloom Energy released the Form 10-K.  The parties stipulated to a
briefing schedule whereby the Plaintiff would file the amended
complaint 14 days after the release of the Form 10-K and then the
Defendants would respond to the amended complaint 45 days
thereafter.  The Court entered the stipulation on March 10, 2020.

Bloom Energy released the Form 10-K on March 31, 2020, thereby
requiring the Plaintiff to file the amended complaint on April 14,
2020.  The Plaintiff respectfully requests an additional week to
file the amended complaint, and that all other remaining deadlines
be extended likewise.  The Defendants do not oppose the Plaintiff's
request.

It is therefore stipulated and agreed by the Plaintiff, the
Defendants, and the Underwriter Defendants, and Judge Gilliam
granted, that (i) the Plaintiff was to file a Second Amended
Complaint by April 21, 2020; (ii) the Defendants and the
Underwriter Defendants will either answer the Second Amended
Complaint or move to dismiss by June 5, 2020; (iii) if the
Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants move to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff will oppose the motions by
July 20, 2020; and (iv)  the Defendants and the Underwriter
Defendants will submit replies in further support of the motions by
Aug. 19, 2020.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 15, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/6Wbdce from Leagle.com.

LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP, Adam M. Apton -- aapton@zlk.com -- Adam C.
McCall -- amccall@zlk.com -- San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Lead
Plaintiff and the Class.

BLUE DIAMOND: Barajas Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Barajas, Maria Vargas and Elba Vizcaino, on behalf of a class
of similarly situated individuals v. BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS INC,
DENISE HORN, PATRICIA AGUILAR and RESHAM KLAIR individually; and
DOES 1 through 40, inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-00679-NONE-SKO (E.D.
Cal., May 13, 2020), is brought to vindicate the rights afforded to
employees by the California Labor Code, the Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to compensate the
Plaintiffs for all "hours worked" and failed to pay minimum wage
and overtime premium wages, including overtime hours worked that
were either not compensated, or compensated at rates lower than the
applicable overtime premium wage rate and/or without properly
calculating the regular rate of pay for purposes of paying
overtime, and hours that were not compensated at double the regular
wage.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants.

BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS is a California corporation, which conducted
and conducts business by operating an almond processing plant in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
          Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
          Juan Gamboa, Esq.
          MALLISON & MARTINEZ
          1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
          Oakland, CA 94612-3547
          Phone: (510) 832-9999
          Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
          Email: StanM@TheMMLAwFirm.com
                 HectorM@TheMMLAwFirm.com
                 LMSac@TheMMLAwFirm.com


BLUE DIAMOND: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Barajas Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Barajas, Maria Vargas and Elba Vizcaino, on behalf of a class
of similarly situated individuals v. BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS INC,
DENISE HORN, PATRICIA AGUILAR and RESHAM KLAIR individually; and
DOES 1 through 40, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-at-00470 (E.D. Cal.,
May 13, 2020), arises from the Defendants' systemic failure to pay
California non-exempt employees, including the Plaintiffs, in
conformance with the California Labor Code, the Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The core violations the Plaintiffs allege against the Defendants
are: failure to pay all overtime wages owed; failure to pay all
minimum wages owed; failure to pay all overtime wages owed; failure
to provide rest periods or pay additional wages; failure to provide
meal periods or pay additional wages; and failure to pay all wages
earned at termination or resignation.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants.

BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS is a California corporation, which conducted
and conducts business by operating an almond processing plant in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
          Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
          Juan Gamboa, Esq.
          MALLISON & MARTINEZ
          1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
          Oakland, CA 94612-3547
          Phone: (510) 832-9999
          Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
          Email: StanM@TheMMLAwFirm.com
                 HectorM@TheMMLAwFirm.com
                 LMSac@TheMMLAwFirm.com


BUMBLE BEE: Ex-CEO Presses for Suit Delay to Allow Criminal Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Smith, writing for Under Current News, reports that the
plaintiffs waging the class-action lawsuit against the major US
tuna canners seek to lift a temporary stay imposed before the
criminal trial of former Bumble Bee Foods CEO Christopher
Lischewski, which ended in December.

But Mr. Lischewski, who has yet to be sentenced, wants to keep the
stay in place as he plans to appeal his conviction, court documents
show.

According to an April 6, 2020 filing before San Diego,
California-based federal judge Janis Sammartino, who is overseeing
the class-action filed against Bumble Bee, StarKist & Co and
Tri-Union Seafoods' Chicken of the Sea Interantional, Mr.
Lischewski's lawyers don't believe that the stay, which effectively
places the civil actions against the former CEO on hold, should be
lifted at this time.

Lawyers for Associated Wholesale Grocers (AWG) and companies known
as the "direct action plaintiffs" argued that since Mr. Lischewski
testified during his trial, a stay of the civil proceedings is no
longer necessary to protect his Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination.

But Lischewski's lawyers argue that the stay should continue at
least until all of his criminal appeals are exhausted, the
bankruptcy proceeding of Bumble Bee, which was sold earlier this
year to Taiwan's FCF Co, is complete and Sammartino has ruled on
Lischewski's motion to dismiss the civil suit.

They added that the former CEO continues to maintain his innocence
and will soon file an appeal. [GN]


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Illegally Hiked Egg Prices, Bell et al. Say
------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH BELL, SHERRY DABBS-LAURY, CHARLENE DIRKS, WENDY BROWN, and
TONNIE WALKER-BECK, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CAL-MAINE FOODS, ROSE ACRE
FARMS, INC., HILLANDALE FARMS, TRILLIUM FARM HOLDINGS, LLC,
REMBRANDT ENTERPRISES, INC., HICKMAN EGG RANCH, INC., DAYBREAK
FOODS, INC., WEAVER BROS., INC., SPARBOE FOODS CORP., HERBRUCK'S
POULTY RANCH, INC., CENTRUM VALLEY FARMS, L.P., OPAL FOODS, LLC,
MIDWEST POULTRY SERVICES, L.P., COSTCO WHOLESARE CORP., ALBERTSON'S
COMPANIES, INC., WAL-MART STORES, INC., THE KROGER CO., HEB GROCERY
CO., L.P., BROOKSHIRE'S GROCERY CO., LOWE'S MARKETS, INC.
Defendants Case No. 1:20-cv-00461-RP (W.D. Tex., April 30, 2020) is
a statewide class action brought by the Plaintiffs and the class
which concerns the despicable and illegal practice of price-gouging
of essential groceries, specifically eggs, by Defendants in the
midst of the ongoing and unprecedented pandemic.

Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent bought grossly
marked-up eggs through the supply chain created by the Defendants,
which includes producers, wholesalers, and retailers. Because
consumers such as plaintiffs lack access to information about which
of the Defendants, or all of them, participated in the
price-gouging resulting in a near-tripling of egg prices in the
past 30 days, plaintiffs have sued all the Defendants in the
alternative. Plaintiffs cannot assert that every Defendant engaged
in price-gouging, but plaintiffs can and do assert that some or all
of these Defendants illegally marked up egg prices following Texas
Governor Greg Abbott's declaration of an emergency in violation of
Texas law.

Between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and March 30, 2020, the
price of eggs nearly tripled in Texas. In the weeks since, they
have remained much higher than their pre-emergency prices. Some or
all of the defendants are engaging in price-gouging prohibited by
Texas law. Plaintiffs allege this because of the undeniable fact
that egg prices nearly tripled after the emergency declaration.

Each defendant, whether a retailer, wholesaler, or producer of
eggs, is in the business of supplying eggs to customers in this
federal district. Each defendant is part of the supply chain for
eggs in Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are presented by:

          Alexander McSwain, Esq.
          THE CARLSON LAW FIRM
          100 E. Central Texas Expy
          Killeen, TX 76541
          Telephone: (800) 359-5690
          Facsimile: (254) 526-8204
          E-Mail: amcswain@carlsonattorneys.com

                    - and -

          John E. Norris, Esq.
          DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
          2154 Highland Avenue
          South Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 930-9900
          Facsimile: (205) 930-9989
          Email: jnorris@davisnorris.com

CALIFORNIA: Impairs Obligation of Rental Contracts, Michie Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOKSANA MICHIE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. GAVIN CHRISTOPHER NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor
of the State of California; and TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, in her
official capacity as Chair of the California Judicial Council, Case
No. 2:20-cv-04213 (C.D. Cal., May 8, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants impaired the obligation of contracts between the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated and their tenants, in
violations of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution and violations of
the Takings Clause State of California, 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

According to the complaint, California Governor Newsom and
California Judicial Council Chair Cantil-Sakauye have, without
compensation, impaired the rental contracts between the Plaintiff
and their tenants. The Plaintiff contends that the laws have
effectuated a taking of her property and others similarly situated
and forcing them to allow tenants to live in their property free of
rent, meanwhile requiring them to pay and or incur property tax,
insurance, mortgage payments and to pay for the maintenance on said
property, without rental income to offset said expenses.

The Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order declaring the
Governor's and the Chair's actions unconstitutional, and directing
payment of just compensation.

On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom issued his proclamation that a
state of emergency exists in California due to COVID-19. Governor
Newsom on March 27th then issued his Executive Order N-37-20
(free-rent order), which allows tenants to stop payment of rent,
whether or not they are impacted by the novel coronavirus pandemic,
for the public purpose of providing housing for members of the
public, who would otherwise join the ranks of California's numerous
and swelling homeless population.

Chair Cantil-Sakauye, in conjunction with the other members of the
non-elected California Judicial Council, have passed an Emergency
Rule 1 [Unlawful Detainers] which prohibits courts from issuing
summons on an unlawful detainer complaint until 90 days after the
state of emergency related to COVID-19 is lifted by the
Governor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Doug Michie, Esq.
          MICHIE LAW FIRM
          1056 E. Meta Street #103
          Ventura, CA 93001
          Telephone: 805 641-1000
          Facsimile: 805 258-7272
          E-mail: doug@michielawfirm.com


CANAAN INC: Vincent Wong Law Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on April 26 disclosed that class
action has been commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Canaan Inc. If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Canaan Inc. (CAN)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/canaan-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=6185&wire=1

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 4, 2020

Class Period: publicly traded securities of Canaan, including its
American Depository Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's registration statement and related prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's November 20, 2019 initial public
offering.

Allegations against CAN include that: (1) the purported "strategic
cooperation" was actually a transaction with a related party; (2)
the company's financial health was worse than what was actually
reported; (3) the company had recently removed numerous
distributors from its website just prior to the initial public
offering, many of which were small or suspicious businesses; and
(4) several of the Company's largest Chinese clients in prior years
were clients who were not in the Bitcoin mining industry and, thus,
would likely not be repeat customers.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel.: 212-425-1140
Fax.:866-699-3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


CARNIVAL CORP: Archer COVID-19 Suit Moved from N.D. to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT ARCHER; MARLENE
ARCHER; JACQUELINE GRAHAM; ROBERT GRAHAM; PAMELA GUISTI; MICHAEL
GUISTI; VALERIE PASQUINI WILLSEA; MICHAEL R. NEKY; and GINA M.
PALLOTA on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC; PRINCESS CRUISE LINES LTD.; and
FAIRLINE SHIPPING INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, LTD., Case No.
4:20-cv-02381 (Filed April 8, 2020), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on May 8,
2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-04203-DDP-AS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner. The suit demands $5 million in
damages.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants did not notify
passengers, who were scheduled to board the vessel on February 21,
2020, that passengers from the prior Mexico trip had reported
COVID-19 symptoms, or of the fact that passengers remaining aboard
the Grand Princess had been exposed to and might be infected with
and/or carrying the virus.

The Plaintiffs were all passengers onboard the Grand Princess
cruise from February 21, 2020, to disembarkation on March 10,
2020.

Carnival Corporation is a British-American cruise operator,
currently the world's largest travel leisure company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mary E. Alexander, Esq.
          Brendan D.S. Way, Esq.
          MARY ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1303
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-4440
          Facsimile: (415) 433-5440

               - and -

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008


CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Shen & Baig Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Casa Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated Shen v. Chen et al. and Baig v. Chen et
al., lawsuit remains pending.

On May 29, 2019 and July 3, 2019, two putative class action
lawsuits, Shen v. Chen et al. and Baig v. Chen et al., were filed
in the Massachusetts Superior Court against the Company, certain of
its current and former executive officers and directors, Summit
Partners, the Company's largest investor, and the underwriters from
the Company's December 15, 2017 initial public offering (the "IPO")
(collectively, the "defendants").  

These complaints purport to be brought on behalf of all purchasers
of the Company's common stock in and/or traceable to the IPO.  The
complaints generally allege that (i) each of the defendants
violated Section 11 and/or Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, (the "Securities Act"), because documents
related to the Company's IPO including its registration statement
and prospectus were materially misleading by containing untrue
statements of material fact and/or omitting to state material facts
necessary to make such statements not misleading and (ii) the
individual defendants and Summit Partners acted as controlling
persons within the meaning and in violation of Section 15 of the
Securities Act.  

On August 13, 2019, the Court consolidated these actions and
referred the consolidated actions to the Business Litigation
Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court (the "BLS").  

On September 3, 2019, the BLS accepted the consolidated action into
its session for further proceedings. On November 12, 2019, the
plaintiffs filed an amended shareholder class action complaint,
purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common
stock in and/or traceable to the IPO, which contains substantially
similar allegations and asserts the same claims as the two initial
complaints, described above.  

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including
counsel and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of
damages, and equitable and injunctive relief.  

On January 14, 2020, the defendants served motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, which remain pending.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Casa Systems, Inc., incorporated on February 28, 2003, is provides
a software-centric infrastructure solutions. In addition, the
Company offers solutions for next-generation distributed and
virtualized architectures in cable operator, fixed telecom and
wireless networks. Its products include axyom software platform,
delivery platforms, multi-service applications, capacity expansion
products. The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts.


CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Panther Partners Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Casa Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the defendants' motion
to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Panther Partners, Inc.
v. Guo et al., is pending.

On August 13, 2019, a fourth putative class action lawsuit, Panther
Partners, Inc. v. Guo et al., was filed in the Supreme Court of New
York, New York County, against the Company, certain of its current
and former executive officers and directors, and the underwriters
from the Company's April 30, 2018 follow-on offering of common
stock, (the "Follow-on Offering").  

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of
the Company's common stock in the Follow-on Offering and generally
alleges that (i) each of the defendants, other than Abraham
Pucheril, violated Section 11 of the Securities Act, and each of
the defendants violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act,
because documents related to the Company's Follow-on Offering,
including its registration statement and prospectus, were
materially misleading by containing untrue statements of material
fact and/or omitting to state material facts necessary to make such
statements not misleading and (ii) the individual defendants acted
as controlling persons within the meaning and in violation of
Section 15 of the Securities Act.  

On November 22, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint, purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
common stock in the Follow-on Offering, which contains
substantially similar allegations and asserts the same claims as
the initial complaint, described above.  

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, costs and expenses,
including counsel and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory
measure of damages, and equitable and injunctive relief.  

On January 21, 2020, the defendants served motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, which remain pending.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Casa Systems, Inc., incorporated on February 28, 2003, is provides
a software-centric infrastructure solutions. In addition, the
Company offers solutions for next-generation distributed and
virtualized architectures in cable operator, fixed telecom and
wireless networks. Its products include axyom software platform,
delivery platforms, multi-service applications, capacity expansion
products. The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts.


CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Nix Hook's IPO Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Casa Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion seeking to
dismiss the putative class action suit entitled, Donald Hook v.
Casa Systems, Inc. et al., is still pending.

On August 9, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, Donald Hook v.
Casa Systems, Inc. et al., was filed in the Supreme Court of New
York, New York County, against the Company, certain of its current
and former executive officers and directors, Summit Partners, and
the underwriters from the initial public offering (IPO).  

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of
the Company's common stock in and/or traceable to the IPO and
generally alleges that (i) each of the defendants violated Section
11 and/or Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Act, because documents related to the
IPO including its registration statement and prospectus were
materially misleading by containing untrue statements of material
fact and/or omitting to state material facts necessary to make such
statements not misleading and (ii) the individual defendants and
Summit Partners acted as controlling persons within the meaning and
in violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act.  

On November 22, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common
stock in and/or traceable to the IPO, which contains substantially
similar allegations as the initial complaint, described above, and
asserts claims for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, costs and expenses,
including counsel and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory
measure of damages, disgorgement, and equitable and injunctive
relief.  

On January 21, 2020, the defendants served motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, which remain pending.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Casa Systems, Inc., incorporated on February 28, 2003, is provides
a software-centric infrastructure solutions. In addition, the
Company offers solutions for next-generation distributed and
virtualized architectures in cable operator, fixed telecom and
wireless networks. Its products include axyom software platform,
delivery platforms, multi-service applications, capacity expansion
products. The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts.


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: March 23 Hearing on Horton Deal Approval Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, CORY HORTON, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICE LLC,
Defendant. KEVIN KREJCI, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICE LLC,
Defendant, Case Nos. 13cv307-JAH (WVG), 16cv211-JAH (WVG) (S.D.
Cal.), Judge John A. Houston of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California vacated the hearing set for March
23 2020, at 2:30 p.m. on Plaintiffs Horton and Kevin Krejci's
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.

After a careful review of the Parties' submissions, Judge Houston
deems the Plaintiffs's Motion for Preliminary Approval suitable for
adjudication without oral argument.  Accordingly, the motion is
taken under submission without oral argument, and the hearing set
for March 23, 2020 at 2:30 p.m. is vacated.  The Judge will issue
an order in due course.  As such, the Parties' Joint Motion to
Appear Telephonically for the March 23, 2020 hearing is dismissed
as moot.  However, in the event a hearing is required at a later
time, the Judge will allow the Parties to appear telephonically.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 17, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/LYIeol from Leagle.com.

Cory Horton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adrienne D. McEntee, Terrell
Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, Beth Ellen Terrell, Terrell
Marshall Law Group PLLC, Chiharu Sekino -- csekino@sfmslaw.com --
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, James C. Shah --
jshah@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP &
Trinette G. Kent -- tkent@kentlawpc.com -- Kent Law Offices.

Kevin Krejci, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Trinette G.
Kent, Kent Law Offices.

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Tomio B.
Narita -- tnarita@snllp.com -- Simmonds & Narita LLP, Christopher
Spain, Simmonds & Narita LLP, Jeffrey Alan Topor --
jtopor@snllp.com -- Simmonds and Narita LLP & Sarah H. Scheinhorn
-- sscheinhorn@snllp.com -- Simmonds and Narita LLP.


CBOE GLOBAL: District Court to Hear Appeal from Dismissal Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 1, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2020, that the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois has granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify
the dismissal order for an immediate appeal, in the class action
suit related to the company's Volatility Index methodology (VIX).

On March 20, 2018, a putative class action complaint captioned
Tomasulo v. Cboe Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-02025 was filed
in federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging that the Company intentionally designed its products,
operated its platforms, and formulated the method for calculating
VIX and the Special Opening Quotation, (i.e., the special VIX value
designed by the Company and calculated on the settlement date of
VIX derivatives prior to the opening of trading), in a manner that
could be collusively manipulated by a group of entities named as
John Doe defendants.

A number of similar putative class actions, some of which do not
name the Company as a party, were filed in federal court in
Illinois and New York on behalf of investors in certain
volatility-related products.

On June 14, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
centralized the putative class actions in the federal district
court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On September 28, 2018, plaintiffs filed a master, consolidated
complaint that is a putative class action alleging various claims
against the Company and John Doe defendants in the federal district
court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The claims asserted against the Company consist of a Securities
Exchange Act fraud claim, three Commodity Exchange Act claims and a
state law negligence claim. Plaintiffs request a judgment awarding
class damages in an unspecified amount, as well as punitive or
exemplary damages in an unspecified amount, prejudgment interest,
costs including attorneys’ and experts' fees and expenses and
such other relief as the court may deem just and proper.

On November 19, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
master consolidated complaint and the plaintiffs filed their
response on January 7, 2019. The Company filed its reply on January
28, 2019.

On May 29, 2019, the federal district court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted the Company’s motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' entire complaint against the Company. The state law
negligence claim was dismissed with prejudice and the other claims
were dismissed without prejudice with leave to file an amended
complaint, which plaintiffs filed on July 19, 2019.

On August 28, 2019, the Company filed its second motion to dismiss
the amended consolidated complaint and plaintiffs filed their
response on October 8, 2019.

On January 27, 2020, the federal district court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted the Company's second motion to dismiss
and all counts against the Company were dismissed with prejudice.

On April 21, 2020, the federal district court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the
January 27, 2020 dismissal order for an immediate appeal.

Cboe Global said, "The Company currently believes that the claims
are without merit and intends to litigate the matter vigorously.
The Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may
result from this litigation."

Cboe Global Markets, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
options exchange in the United States. It operates in five
segments: Options, U.S. Equities, Futures, European Equities, and
Global FX. Cboe Global Markets, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Yattara Sues over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ISRAEL AG NOUH YATTARA, individually and for others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CENTERPOINT EBERGY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:20-cv-01554 (S.D. Tex., May 1, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a GIS Technician from
approximately September 2017 through March 2018.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff was classified by Defendant
as an independent contractor and non-exempt employee throughout his
employment with Defendant. Despite working approximately 50 hours
on a typical week, Defendant paid Plaintiff the same hourly rate
for the hours he works over 40 in a work week instead of paying him
overtime compensation at the rates required by the FLSA.

Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages equal in amount to their unpaid compensation, reasonable
attorneys' fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

CenterPoint Energy, Inc. is an electric and natural gas utility
company providing services throughout central United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: 713-352-1100
          Fax: 713-352-3300
          Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  cfitz@mybackwages.com

                - and –

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: 713-877-8788
          Fax: 713-877-8065
          Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


CHAMPION PETFOODS: Court Narrows Claims in Colangelo Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RACHEL COLANGELO, et al., individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
CHAMPION PETFOODS USA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
6:18-CV-1228 (LEK/ML) (N.D. N.Y.), Judge Lawrence E. Kahn of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted
in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Plaintiffs Colangelo and Kathleen Paradowski, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, bring the putative class
action against Defendants Champion Petfoods USA, Inc. and Champion
Petfoods LP.  The Plaintiffs, who seek to represent a class of New
York purchasers of Champion dog food, assert that Champion falsely
advertised that its dog food did not contain (or have a risk of
containing) a variety of unpleasant substances, including heavy
metals, bisphenol A ("BPA"), and pentobarbital.

The action is a case about dog food.  Champion promotes its dog
food as -- to paraphrase -- fresh, high quality, and just what dogs
need.  Based on this advertising, the Plaintiffs were willing to
pay a premium for Champion dog food.  But they later learned that
the dog food for which they paid a premium contained a variety of
unwelcome substances, including heavy metals, BPA, and maybe even
pentobarbital.  The Plaintiffs claim that Champion's advertising
led them to believe that these substances were not present in the
food, and that they would not have bought the food had they known
the truth.

The Plaintiffs assert nine causes of action against Champion:
violations of New York General Business Law Section 349, violations
of New York General Business Law Section 350, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation,
negligence per se, and unjust enrichment.

Champion Petfoods USA is incorporated in Delaware and has its
principal place of business in Kentucky.  Since March 2016,
Champion Petfoods USA has sold all the dog food at issue in the
case.  Champion Petfoods LP is a Canadian limited partnership and
has its principal place of business is in Alberta.  It wholly owns,
operates, and/or controls Champion Petfoods USA.  Prior to March
2016, Champion Petfoods LP sold all the dog food at issue.  The
Defendants formulate, develop, manufacture, label, distribute,
market, advertise, and sell the dog food in question under the
brand names Orijen and Acana.

Plaintiffs Colangelo and Paradowski purchased the Defendants' dog
food at their local pet stores and online.  They state that they
paid the premium price on the assumption that the labeling of the
Contaminated Dog Foods was accurate and that the Contaminated Dog
Foods were healthy, superior quality, natural, and safe for dogs to
ingest.  They would not have paid the money had they known that the
Contaminated Dog Foods contained any levels of the heavy metals,
pentobarbital, toxins, BPA, and/or unnatural or other ingredients
that do not conform to the products' labels, packaging,
advertising, and statements.

The Plaintiffs bring the action individually and on behalf of all
persons who reside in the State of New York who, from July 1, 2013,
to the present and purchased the Contaminated Dog Foods for
household or business use, and not for resale.  The Court has
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.

The Defendants move to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  While the Plaintiffs assert nine causes
of action, the Defendants first raise two arguments that apply
broadly to all claims: (1) that the Plaintiffs' claims fail because
they do not allege that the dog food contains unsafe levels of any
substance; and (2) that the Plaintiffs' claims fail because they do
not allege that the Defendants made any actionable false or
misleading statements.  The Defendants then articulate additional,
specific reasons why the Court should dismiss each of the
Plaintiffs' individual claims.

Judge Kahn granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.  He granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as
to the Plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty,
negligence, and negligence per se.  He denied the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss as to the Plaintiffs' claims for violations of
GBL Sections 349 and 350, breach of express warranty, fraudulent
misrepresentation, and fraud by omission.  The Plaintiffs' claim
for unjust enrichment is voluntarily dismissed.

The Plaintiffs attempt to circumvent the privity requirement by
arguing that intended beneficiaries may bring a breach of implied
warranty claims, despite a lack of direct contractual privity.  The
argument fails, however, because the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
does not even allege that the retailers from which Plaintiffs
purchased the dog food had contracts with Champion, much less that
the Plaintiffs were the intended beneficiaries of those contracts.


The Plaintiffs' negligence claims are barred by the economic loss
doctrine.  The Court holds that it is well settled that New York
law holds that a negligence action seeking recovery for economic
loss will not lie.  The Plaintiffs appear to argue that the
economic loss doctrine does not apply to their negligence per se
claim, but only cite case law discussing broadly what negligence
per se is, or explaining the justification for the economic loss
doctrine.  Thus, the Plaintiffs' negligence and negligence per se
claims are dismissed, the Court orders.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 18, 2020
Memorandum-Decision & Order is available at https://is.gd/rQwZch
from Leagle.com.

Rachel Colangelo, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Charles
J. LaDuca -- charles@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP,
Daniel E. Gustafson -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson,
Gluek Law Firm, pro hac vice, Daryl DeValerio Andrews, Andrews
DeValerio LLP, Gustavo F. Bruckner, Pomerantz LLP, Katherine Van
Dyck -- kvandyck@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Kevin
A. Seely -- kseely@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins LLP, Rebecca A.
Peterson -- rapeterson@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen Pllp,
Robert K. Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal
Nauen Pllp, Samuel Adams, Pomerantz LLP & Steven M. McKany --
smckany@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins LLP.

Kathleen Paradowski, Plaintiff, represented by Charles J. LaDuca,
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP & Daryl DeValerio Andrews, Andrews
DeValerio LLP.

Champion Petfoods USA, Inc. & Champion Petfoods LP, Defendants,
represented by Cynthia E. Neidl -- neidlc@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig, LLP & David A. Coulson -- coulsond@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig, PA, pro hac vice.


CHINA: Faces At Least Four Class-Action Suits Over Coronavirus
--------------------------------------------------------------
Asher Stockler, writing for Newsweek, reports that at least four
federal class-action lawsuits have been filed against the Chinese
government that aim to recover trillions of dollars in damages for
what plaintiffs allege is China's failure to contain the
coronavirus outbreak and notify the international community about
its dangers.

In one suit filed in late March, a coalition of California property
managers and an accounting firm are seeking to represent all "small
businesses" in California that have suffered as a result of
COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. A suit filed
in mid-March by several Florida residents aims to assemble its own
class of millions of people.

Larry Klayman, a conservative lawyer and founder of the group
Freedom Watch, is leading another class-action complaint accusing
China of releasing a "biological weapon" into the public.

All of the suits accuse the Chinese government of direct complicity
in the COVID-19 outbreak and hope to use the machinery of the U.S.
legal system to recover enormous amounts in damages. But the chance
these actions will lead to any actual recoveries is slim, legal
experts said.

The lawsuits will already face a substantial barrier in attempting
to bring the Chinese into U.S. courts, explained Chimene Keitner, a
professor of international law at the University of California,
Hastings College of Law, and a former State Department Civil
Service employee.

According to Keitner, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976
(FSIA) provides foreign governments blanket immunity from most
U.S.-tried lawsuits, carving out exceptions only in a few narrow
circumstances.

"The baseline grant of immunity is a fact of life in international
relations," Keitner told Newsweek. "So the entire premise of the
act is codifying the immunity of foreign states."

Keitner said she believes that the exemptions invoked in these four
lawsuits are misguided. Several complaints, for example, cite the
wet market in Wuhan, believed to be the source of China's outbreak,
as an example of how negligence contributed to the virus' spread.
However, for China to be held accountable for "commercial activity"
such as a market, the government would have to be directing or
operating the activity itself.

The commercial activity would also have to be conducted in the
private marketplace: lawsuits citing potentially improper practices
at the nearby Wuhan Institute of Virology could fail because, as
the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, an entity like the government-run
institute might not be acting "in the manner of a private player
within" the market.

Another popular exemption cited in these suits would require China
to have a mandatory duty to issue specific warnings about the
virus. Keitner said she does not believe this claim will find warm
reception with the courts, either.

"The Chinese government, when it is acting in China, does not have
any affirmative duties under United States law," observed Keitner.

The alleged act of wrongdoing here would also have to have taken
place in the United States, not just the resultant harm.

Kent Schmidt, a California attorney who specializes in business and
class-action litigation, noted another hurdle, expressing doubt
that a federal judge will let any of the lawsuits represent a class
as numerous as they are desiring. He said the chance of this was
"absolutely zero."

"Every time a plaintiff wants to certify a class, they have to show
that the class is manageable," explained Schmidt. "This is just an
example of why you can't have a class of everyone who has been
impacted by COVID-19. It's just not feasible."

But even among detractors, there was little disagreement that China
bore much responsibility for the wreckage, albeit one that may not
have immediate recourse in the U.S. court system.

"There's no doubt China bears a huge deal of blame in the moral
sense, and responsibility in the international sense, for not
containing this outbreak sooner," said Keitner. "But U.S. courts
are not in a position to provide individual redress to those harmed
here."

Klayman, the conservative lawyer, disagreed. His lawsuit, seeking
to represent all Americans whose health or finances have been
injured by the virus, is operating under a separate and rarely used
liability exemption that allows lawsuits to proceed based on acts
of international terrorism.

"The reason China has no immunity is because we allege they
violated international conventions and treaties in terms of
creating what is, in effect, a biological terrorist weapon," he
told Newsweek.

Convincing a judiciary deferential to immunity grants will be
challenging, especially when trying to prove that China's conduct
meets the definition of international terrorism, a high bar.

But Klayman claimed he has "whistleblowers with firsthand
knowledge" of China's involvement in the viral outbreak who are
currently residing in Israel and the United States and who can help
substantiate this charge.

"The American people should not have to pay for the damage," he
said. "Communist China should have to pay for the damage." [GN]


CHINA: Missouri Files Class Action Over COVID-19 Pandemic
---------------------------------------------------------
Mary Sanchez, writing for Tribune News Service, reports Missouri
has sued China, casting a flimsy legal argument to hold the global
heavyweight responsible for losses of life and commerce due to
COVID-19, which originated in Wuhan.

The lawsuit, along with a handful of similar class action suits
filed recently in U.S. federal courts (the just-as-red state of
Mississippi is currently lying in wait to file its own suit), is
political theater, a largely Republican-led measure meant to beef
up "America First" dialogue within the GOP base.

China, for all intents and purposes, laughed in response.

Beijing is aware of what a first-year law student could state.
Sovereign nations, including the U.S., have wide immunity from such
claims.

China also understands that 2020 is a presidential election year in
the U.S. And this saber rattling is a way to deflect attention from
the lack of testing across the nation to track the virus, problems
assessing unemployment benefits and desperately needed funds for
small business owners.

Instead of viewing it as a legitimate claim against another global
superpower, the lawsuit, and the sentiment behind it are most
useful as a barometer to gauge future shifts and fractures in
U.S.-China relations.

The World Economic Forum's Global Risks Report for 2020 already
offered a sobering assessment of the situation. The report was
issued in mid-January, barely two months before the coronavirus
began to claim U.S. lives and shutter markets.

It prophetically noted, "a potential decoupling of the world's
largest economies, the United States and China, is cause for
further concern. The question for stakeholders -- one that cannot
be answered in the affirmative -- is whether in the face of a
prolonged global slowdown we are positioned in a way that will
foster resiliency and prosperity. "

Economic, humanitarian and world health experts have long warily
watched as China took dramatic steps in recent decades to grow its
reach in the world. China is part of massive shifts in the balance
of global powers, with some countries reasserting themselves and
others finding it difficult to keep up with technological
advancements and reap their economic rewards.

Of particular concern is China's development of artificial
intelligence, its investments across Africa and Asia and how its
military is positioned.

All of this speaks to how the world is interconnected in ways that
some Americans are somewhat oblivious to. The Global Risks Report
notes that China and the U.S. alone account for over 40% of the
global GDP. In the context of the pandemic alone, China
manufactures half the world's medical masks and remains a major
producer of pharmaceutical and protective equipment, according to
The Atlantic. That's not a relationship easily unwound, nor do many
American businesses necessarily want it to be. Besides, cooperation
now more than ever, is needed to limit loss of life.

No country can manage alone against a global pandemic.

And yet, an increasingly isolationist mentality is on the rise. It
is this distorted nationalism that is made plain in the rhetoric
behind efforts to sue China.

Again, the Global Risks Report addressed this fact, and its
troubling prevalence around the world: "What were once givens
regarding alliance structures and multilateral systems no longer
hold as states question the value of long-standing frameworks,
adopt more nationalist postures in pursuit of individual agendas
and weigh the potential geopolitical consequences of economic
decoupling."

It's also important to be cognizant of this fact: Pandemics expose
vulnerabilities, and preexisting fragilities. And no amount of
stone throwing will hide any cracks in a country's armor. The Trump
administration would like to cast a pointed finger of blame toward
China, but it can't do so if the goal is merely to muddle the
administration's own missteps.

The U.S. is suffering now, our citizens are dying in horrendous
numbers, not simply due to the virus, but also because of what it's
exacerbating -- namely our weaknesses in health care systems and
supply chains. And yes, some of this is because of our heavy
reliance on China.

China should not escape international scrutiny. If warranted,
appropriate penalties for China's failure to admit the fatal
proportions of COVID-19 and to offer what it knew about its genetic
footprint, can and should be handed down. There is already mounting
evidence that it silenced early whistleblowers.

Facts will matter in the judgements rendered, perhaps by an
international court. But nominal efforts to sue and otherwise
punish China will do little more than "poke the bear" and further
alienate what should be a powerful ally.

Epidemiologists are clear on one aspect of the current pandemic:
COVID-19 is the crisis at the world's doorstep in 2020. But it will
be followed by others that could possibly worsen the economic
fallout, threatening a global recession.

And what we do now to prepare, to repair the vulnerabilities
exposed by the coronavirus, will help us face the world together
whatever future winds may bring. [GN]


CHINA: Negligence Results to COVID-19 Crisis, Edwards Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL EDWARDS, SHERIFF OF TANGIPOHOA PARISH v. THE PEOPLE'S
REPUBLIC OF CHINA, THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA, NATIONAL HEALTH
COMMISSION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, MINISTRY OF EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, MINISTRY OF CIVIL
AFFAIRS OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT OF
HUBEI PROVINCE, PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT OF WUHAN CITY, THE WUHAN
INSTITUTE OF VIROLOGY, THE CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, and THE
CHINESE CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, Case No.
2:20-cv-01393-NJB-KWR (E.D. La., May 8, 2020), arises out of
negligence and fraud of the Defendants, which resulted in a global
health pandemic and economic turmoil associated with COVID-19,
causing economic damages to the Plaintiff and those similarly
situated.

COVID-19 is a disease caused by novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. The
first cases of COVID-19 in the world were identified in Wuhan City
located in Hubei Province of the People's Republic of China in late
2019.

The Defendants have contended that the zoonotic transfer (the
transfer from animal to human) of SARS-CoV-2 occurred in the Huanan
Seafood Wholesale Market located in Wuhan.

Despite the Defendants' contentions about the location of zoonotic
transfer of SARS-CoV-2, an article published on January 24, 2020,
in the medical journal The Lancet that was based on collection and
analysis of data regarding patients, who had laboratory-confirmed
cases of COVID-19 in Wuhan City found that 34% of the cases had no
exposure to the seafood market and stated that "no epidemiological
link was found between the first patient [who had exposure to the
market] and later cases."

Communist Party of China is a political party in China whose
general secretary is the president of the PRC. National Health
Commission of the People's Republic of China is a ministry of the
PRC's State Council charged with formulating health policies.
Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention is an agency of
the National Health Commission.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. Couhig. Jr., Esq.
          Jonathan P. Lemann, Esq.
          Donald C. Massey, Esq.
          William A. Barousse, Esq.
          COUHIG PARTNERS, LLC
          Energy Centre
          1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3250
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: 504 588-1288
          Facsimile: 504 588-9750
          E-mail: couhigre@couhigpartners.com
                  jlemann@couhigpartners.com
                  dmassey@couhigpartners.com
                  wbarousse@couhigpartners.com


CHRYSLER JEEP: Faces Moskowitz TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Moskowitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHRYSLER JEEP OF WHITE PLAINS, INC. d/b/a WHITE PLAINS
CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE, a New York corporation, Case No. 7:20-cv-03733
(S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to
secure redress for its violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Through
this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a resident of Fairfield
County, Connecticut.

The Defendant is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles to
individuals and businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


CIMAREX ENERGY: Dodson Seeks Overtime Pay for Workers Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENNEY DODSON, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v.
CIMAREX ENERGY CO., Case No. 5:20-cv-00394-HE (W.D. Okla., April
28, 2020), brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers by Cimarex.

Mr. Dodson worked for Cimarex as a Drilling Consultant. He and the
other Day Rate Workers regularly work in excess of 40 hours each
week, but Cimarex does not pay them overtime for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a single workweek, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff contends that instead of paying overtime, Cimarex
classified him and other Day Rate Workers as independent
contractors and paid them a day rate with no overtime.

Cimarex is a company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  tjones@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713 877-8788
          Facsimile: 713 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Faces St. Julian Suit in W.D. Michigan
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Cincinnati
Insurance Company. The case is captioned as St. Julian Wine Co.,
Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-00374-PLM-RSK
(W.D. Mich., April 30, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul L. Maloney.

The lawsuit seeks declaratory judgment alleging violation of
insurance-related laws.

The Cincinnati Insurance Company, operating since 1950, stands
among the nation's top 25 property casualty insurer groups based on
net written premiums.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric Parzianello, Esq.
          John A. Hubbard, Esq.
          HUBBARD SNITCHLER & PARZIANELLO
          Mayflower Centre
          801 W. Ann Arbor Trail, Ste. 240
          Plymouth, MI 48170-1694
          Telephone: (313) 672-7300
          E-mail: eparzianello@hspplc.com
                  jhubbard@hspplc.com


CLARK COUNTY, KY: Ky. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Jones Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, David Jones, Individually; and David Jones, On Behalf
of All Persons Similarly SITUATED, Appellants, v. CLARK COUNTY,
KENTUCKY; AND FRANK DOYLE, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellees, Case No.
2018-CA-001710-MR (Ky. App.), the Court of Appeals of Kentucky
affirmed the Nov. 1, 2018 order of the Clark Circuit Court granting
summary judgment to the Appellees on Jones' claims.

David Jones was arrested and incarcerated on Oct. 26, 2013, in the
Clark County Detention Center.  While in the detention center,
Jones was charged a $35 booking fee and $10 fee for each day of his
confinement.  Jones was incarcerated for approximately 14 months
and was released on Dec. 15, 2014, after posting bond.  All charges
against Jones were ultimately dismissed.  Subsequently, Jones
received a bill totaling $4,008.85 for fees associated with his
incarceration at the detention center.  Jones submitted a one-time
payment of $20.

Jones then filed an action against Clark County, Kentucky, and
Frank Doyle, Clark County Jailer, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Kentucky.  Therein, he alleged that the
assessed fees for his incarceration violated Kentucky Revised
Statutes ("KRS") 441.265 and the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Jones also
raised various claims under state law.  Clark County and Doyle
thereafter filed a motion to dismiss.

In Jones v. Clark County, Action No. 5:15-CV-350-JMH, 2016 WL
1050743 (E.D. Ky. March 11, 2016), the federal district court
determined that no violations of the due process clause occurred
citing to Sickles v. Campbell County.  The district court dismissed
Jones' claims.  Jones then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit.  The Sixth Circuit concluded that the due
process clause presented no impediment to the assessed
incarceration fees.  The Court declined to exercise jurisdiction on
Jones' state law claims.

On Feb. 3, 2017, Jones filed a Class Action Complaint against
appellees in the Clark Circuit Court.  Jones alleged that he brings
the action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23.01, et seq. of the
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.  The class consists of all
persons admitted to, incarcerated in, or released from the Jail who
have had their cash confiscated and kept by the Defendants, or have
been billed by the Defendants, for the costs of their confinement
when the charges for which they were incarcerated were subsequently
dismissed.

The Appellees filed an answer and, thereafter, a motion for summary
judgment.

By order entered Nov. 1, 2018, the circuit court granted summary
judgment in favor of Clark County and Doyle.  The circuit court
determined that KRS 441.265 permitted the detention center to
assess $4,008.85 in fees and that no provision of the Kentucky
Constitution was violated.  The appeal follows.

Jones contends that the circuit court erroneously rendered summary
judgment in favor of Clark County and Doyle.  He initially
maintains the circuit court improperly interpreted KRS 441.265 as
permitting the detention center to assess fees in the absence of an
order from the "sentencing court."  Jones believes KRS 441.265
mandates that "an order of a sentencing court" is required before a
prisoner's confiscated money can be kept.  

Considering the plain language of KRS 441.265, the interpretation
by the Court in Cole v. Warren County, and the definition of
prisoner contained in KRS 441.005(3)(a), the Appellate Court holds
that the Court is bound by both statute and precedent to reach the
conclusion that a jail or detention center may assess fees
associated with incarceration against a prisoner who is only
charged with a crime and without an order from a sentencing court.

Jones next alleges that KRS 441.265 violates Sections 1, 2, 10, and
17 of the Kentucky Constitution.  He generally argues that it is
unconstitutional for the state to collect and keep monies from an
innocent person.

The Appellate Court has reviewed the circuit court's opinion upon
whether KRS 441.265 violates Sections 1, 2, 10, and 17 of the
Kentucky Constitution and adopt its erudite analysis.
Consequently, the Appellate Court concludes that Jones failed to
demonstrate a violation of Sections 1, 2, 10, or 17 of the Kentucky
Constitution.

Jones also argues that the assessed incarceration fees violates the
fundamentally American presumption of innocence.  He particularly
maintains that absent a plea or an adjudication of guilt, a person
is presumed innocent and owes the state nothing.

The views Nelson v. Colorado as distinguishable.  In Nelson, the
appellant was ordered to pay after conviction sums to a victim
compensation fund, a victims' and witnesses' assistance law
enforcement fund, court costs, restitution, and a time payment fee.
The time payment fee was imposed each year that appellant had not
fully paid the sums ordered by the court.  As such, it is clear
that Nelson did not involve incarceration fees, as in the instant
case.  The Appellate Court, thus, rejects Jones' contention of
error.

The Appellate Court views any remaining allegations of error as
moot or without merit.

In sum, the Appellate Court is of the opinion that the circuit
court properly rendered summary judgment in favor of the Appellees.
For the foregoing reasons, the Appellate Court affirmed the order
of the Clark Circuit Court.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/gu3C6I from Leagle.com.

Gregory A. Belzley -- gbelzley@aol.com -- Prospect, Kentucky, Matt
Boyd, Lexington, Kentucky, Briefs for Appellants.

Jeffrey C. Mando -- jmando@aswdlaw.com -- Jennifer L. Langen --
JLangen@aswdlaw.com -- Covington, Kentucky Brief for Appellees.


CLASSIC KOSHER: Avila Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA and NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ANTONIO AVILA, PRESILIANO AVILA INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. CLASSIC KOSHER FOODS INC., (D/B/A
CLASSIC KOSHER FOODS) JACOB FEUEREISEN (AKA YAAIKOV FAVEREITSEN),
Case No. 1:20-cv-02120 (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2020), seeks to recover
overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay, unlawful deductions and
breach-of-contract and quantum meruit damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs contend that they regularly work for the Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving appropriate
overtime compensation for any of the hours that they worked. They
also allege that the Defendants failed to pay them the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10
hours a day.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants, who were
ostensibly employed as Catering Assistants for Classic Kosher Foods
in Brooklyn.

The Defendants owned, operated and controlled Classic Kosher Foods
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
          www.FightForUrRights.com
          42 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 203-2417


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Still Defends ERISA Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action alleging  violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

In June 2016, a putative class action claiming that residual
annuity payments made to certain participants in the
Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan did not
comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed
against the Plan, the Company and certain individuals in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

This action has been certified as a class action.

The relief sought includes recalculation of benefits, pre- and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees.

The Company is contesting this action vigorously.

Colgate-Palmolive,. said, " Since the amount of any potential loss
from this case currently cannot be reasonably estimated, the range
of reasonably possible losses in excess of accrued liabilities
disclosed above does not include any amount relating to the case."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Colgate-Palmolive Company, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells consumer products worldwide. The company
operates through two segments, Oral, Personal and Home Care; and
Pet Nutrition. Colgate-Palmolive Company was founded in 1806 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


COMMUNITY BANK: Claims in Kelly Suit Over Overdraft Fees Narrowed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLES KELLY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COMMUNITY BANK, N.A., Defendant,
Case No. 8:19-CV-919 (MAD/CFH) (N.D. N.Y.), Judge Mae A. D'Agostino
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
granted in part and denied in part (i) the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and (ii) the Plaintiff's
cross-motion to amend his complaint.

Plaintiff Charles Kelly, an account-holder at Community Bank,
commenced the putative class action on July 26, 2019, alleging
multiple causes of action stemming from Community Bank's policy and
practice regarding the assessment of overdraft fees and
insufficient funds fees.

In his original complaint, the Plaintiff alleged two causes of
action: (1) breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and (2) violations of Pennsylvania's Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL").  Plaintiff
seeks to amend the complaint to include two additional named
Plaintiffs, Tina Thompson and Scott Doxey, include allegations
regarding overdraft fees on so-called "phantom transactions," bring
a claim under the New York General Business Law, and add a class
and subclass.

Both Plaintiff Kelly and the proposed Plaintiffs allege that they
hold accounts with the Bank which are governed by the Account
Agreement, Overdraft Practices Disclosure, and Electronic Fund
Transfer Act Disclosure.  The claims in the proposed amended
complaint are based on the theory that the Defendant breached the
Account Agreements by (1) assessing overdraft fees on debit card
transactions that were authorized when the account holder's balance
was positive but settled when the available balance was negative
("APPSN transactions"), (2) assessing overdraft fees on transfers
from one account with the Bank to another ("intrabank transfers"),
and (3) assessing overdraft fees on micro-deposit verification
transactions, or so-called "phantom transactions."

The Plaintiff alleges that the language of the Account Agreements
clearly states that Defendant will only charge overdraft fees when
the account does not contain sufficient funds to cover the
transaction, and that the Defendant will not assess overdraft fees
on intrabank transfers or phantom transactions.  Thus, the
Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's imposition of overdraft fees,
as alleged in the proposed amended complaint, violates the Account
Agreements.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's complaint should be
dismissed in its entirety for lack of standing and for failure to
state a claim.  Specifically, it argues that the Plaintiff lacks
the standing to assert the APPSN claim because he was never charged
an overdraft fee for an APPSN transaction.  In the alternative, the
Defendant asserts that overdraft fees are assessed at the time the
transaction is presented by the merchant for payment by the Bank,
not when the transaction is initially authorized.

The Defendant argues that the Account Agreement provides for the
imposition of overdraft fees in situations where the account
balance is insufficient at the time of settlement.  With respect to
the other claims, it argues that the provisions of the contract
provides for the assessment of fees on intrabank transfers and
phantom transactions.  Thus, the Defendant argues, the imposition
of the fees as alleged was consistent with the terms of the account
agreement.

As for the the Plaintiff's motion to amend, the Plaintiff's motion
to amend was filed less than six months after the original
complaint was served.  Courts in the Circuit have found that
similar and even longer delays are insufficient to warrant denial
of leave to amend.  Accordingly, Judge D'Agostino finds that the
less than six-month dely in filing an amended complaint does not
constitute undue delay.

The Defendant does not allege, nor does the record indicate, that
the Plaintiff's motion to amend was brought in bad faith.
Accordingly,the finds that the Plaintiff's cross motion to amend
has not been made in bad faith or with a dilatory motive.

While the Defendant has not argued that it would be prejudiced by
the expansion of the scope of discovery, the Court finds that the
addition of the proposed Plaintiffs and claims would not be unduly
prejudicial to the Defendant. The Court notes that the action is in
its infancy and that discovery has not begun.  Because the motion
to amend has been made at a relatively early stage of the
proceeding (i.e., less than six months after service of the
original complaint and before discovery has commenced), and the
Defendant was on notice of the facts supporting the proposed
amended complaint, the Defendant will not suffer undue prejudice as
a result of the amendment.

The Court grants the Plaintiff's motion to amend with respect to
the allegations of Ms. Thompson and Mr. Doxey, but denies the
motion with respect to the Plaintiff.  The Court finds that the
Plaintiff's proposed claim regarding the assessment of overdraft
fees on APPSN transactions and the assessment of fees on intrabank
transfers would survive a motion to dismiss and, thus, the
amendment is not futile.  A review of the Overdraft Disclosure
makes clear that the sections quoted by the Defendant apply not to
the Defendant's ordinary overdraft procedures, but to its practices
regarding the "Automated Program."

The Plaintiff's breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing claim is based on the same factual allegations relied
on in his breach of contract claim.  Thus, regardless of whether
New York or Pennsylvania law governs, the claims are duplicative.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's amendment regarding his breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is futile.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant intentionally made
omissions which caused him to suffer ascertainable losses, but
failed to allege that the Defendant's omissions or
misrepresentations induced him, or Ms. Thompson, to open or
maintain an account with Defendant or engage in injurious behavior.
Thus, the Court finds that the Plaintiff failed to allege
justifiable reliance.  Accordingly, the motion to amend is denied
and the Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.

Finally, Mr. Doxey's alleged damages for both the breach of
contract claim and Section 349 claim are the fees imposed by the
Defendant as a result of the overdrafts.  Mr. Doxey has not alleged
that the Defendant failed to provide services promised in the
contract or that he sustained damages in the amount of the purchase
price.  Nor has Mr. Doxey alleged that the damages suffered
resulted in the accumulation of interest or anything which might
make the damages for his Section 349 claim different than his
breach of contract claim.  Thus, the Court finds that Mr. Doxey has
failed to allege an injury that is independent of his breach of
contract claims.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to amend is
denied.

After carefully reviewing the entire record in the matter, the
parties' submissions and the applicable law, and for the stated
reasons, Judge D'Agostino granted in part and denied in part (i)
the Plaintiff's cross motion for leave to amend, and (ii) the
Defendant's motions to dismiss.  Plaintiff Kelly is dismissed from
the action.  The Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint
without delay.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 18, 2020
Memorandum-Decision & Order is available at https://is.gd/tIKiJH
from Leagle.com.

Charles Kelly, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Tropin -- tropin
@kolawyers.com -- Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert,
James R. Peluso, Jr. -- jpeluso@dbls.com -- Dreyer Boyajian
LaMarche Safranko, Jeffrey D. Kaliel -- jkaliel@kalielpllc.com --
Kaliel PLLC, Jeffrey M. Ostrow -- ostrow@kolawyers.com --
Kopelowitz, Ostrow Law Firm, Jonathan M. Streisfeld, I --
streisfeld@kolawyers.com -- Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg
Gilbert & Sophia Goren Gold -- sgold@kalielplllc.com -- Kaliel
PLLC.

Community Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Stuart M. Richter
-- stuart.richter@katten.com -- Katten, Muchin Law Firm, Andrew J.
Demko -- andrew.demko@katten.com -- Katten, Muchin Law Firm &
Jonathan B. Fellows -- jfellows@bsk.com -- Bond Schoeneck & King,
PLLC.


COMPANIA PANAMENA: Dumitrescu Seeks Refunds for Cancelled Flights
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARTHA DUMITRESCU, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. COMPANIA PANAMENA DE AVIACION, S.A., a foreign
corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-02125-LDH-RLM (E.D.N.Y., May 8,
2020), is brought against the Defendant for its refusal to provide
contractually guaranteed full cash refunds for cancelled flights to
passengers due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has reprehensibly
extracted maximum capital from customers, while padding its own
balance sheets. The Defendant's innocent customers are now left
holding the bag, she claims.

In lieu of contractually guaranteed refunds, the Defendant has, at
best, required the Plaintiff and the Class to accept devalued,
expiring flight coupons for use on its own airline that carry
substantially less or no value to the Plaintiff and the Class
during this uncertain time, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for breach of
contract and to seek an order from this Court requiring the
Defendant to discontinue the illegal practice of issuing coupons in
lieu of refunds to any Class Member, who has not requested
coupons.

The Defendant, which operates as Copa Airlines, is the publicly
traded flag carrier of Panama that generates billions in revenue on
an annual basis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
          David R. Dubin, Esq.
          LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
          975 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Telephone: 313 392-0015
          Facsimile: 313 392-0025
          E-mail: ddubin@ldclassaction.com
                  ncoulson@ldclassaction.com


CONNECTICUT: ACLU Mulls Suit vs. DOC Over Coronavirus Death
-----------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Friedmann, writing for ctpost, reports that less than 24
hours after a state judge dismissed a lawsuit demanding the release
of prisoners vulnerable to becoming seriously ill if they
contracted the virus, the Connecticut Department of Correction
(DOC) announced that an inmate with underlying health conditions
had died of complications due to COVID-19.

The 57-year-old man was serving a 22-year sentence for first-degree
robbery and had been incarcerated since 2002, according to a DOC
statement that did not identify the individual. He was to be
released in 2022, according to the release.

After he showed COVID-19 symptoms on April 15, officials began to
transfer the man to a quarantine unit, but they took him to Johnson
Memorial Hospital when his condition worsened during the move, the
DOC said.

"The statewide statistics that speak to the number of people that
have lost their lives fighting this deadly virus is a difficult
number to process because the reality is, it is so much more than a
number -- these are human beings with families that love them. I
extend my sincere condolences to this family," DOC Commissioner
Rollin Cook said.

The man was among 98 new coronavirus-related deaths, bringing the
total number of statewide fatalities from the virus up to 1,862,
according to state data released on April 25.

While deaths increased, the number of current hospitalizations
associated with the virus continued to fall, with 1,810 patients
statewide, down 67 from April 24. There were 661 more Connecticut
residents who tested positive, putting the state total at 24,582
confirmed cases.

The unidentified 57-year-old inmate is the second in Connecticut to
have their death linked to the virus. Another inmate, also with
underlying health conditions, died earlier in April.

The news comes on the heels of the dismissal of a state lawsuit
that asked the court to order Gov. Ned Lamont and Cook to take
emergency action to protect Connecticut's prison population from
the coronavirus.

"The longer Governor Lamont ignores medical experts, families,
workers, and more by refusing to issue a compassionate plan to
safely release people, the longer incarcerated people remain in
harm's way," the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut,
which filed the lawsuit, tweeted after the DOC announced the
death.

The Department of Correction could not comment on the dismissal on
April 25 "based on active litigation in the federal court,"
spokeswoman Karen Martucci wrote in an email.

A release from the ACLU of Connecticut earlier in April described
the state lawsuit.

In addition to releasing vulnerable inmates, the state lawsuit
asked for the release of persons "being held pretrial on lesser
charges or low bond amounts, being held solely for technical
violation of probation or parole, eligible for home confinement or
supervised release, or within six months of the end of their
sentence" and to submit a plan to protect those who remained
incarcerated.

Judge Barbara Bellis, who dismissed the lawsuit, declined to
comment on April 25, according to Melissa Farley, director of
external affairs for the Connecticut Judicial Branch.

The ACLU of Connecticut condemned the decision, with Executive
Director David McGuire calling it "cruel" in a statement available
online.

"Our hearts go out to the loved ones of incarcerated people, whom
the state continues to put in harm's way from COVID-19. We will not
stop fighting, and we are using every tool at our disposal to
require Governor Lamont and Commissioner Cook to fulfill their
constitutional and moral obligation to protect incarcerated people
from COVID-19," Dan Barrett, the organization's legal director and
an attorney on the case, said in the statement.

Lamont's office declined to comment on the lawsuit.

The state also announced on April 25 a new initiative aimed to help
small essential businesses with less than 50 employees in need of
free face coverings. Small businesses that are eligible can request
face coverings online. [GN]


CONNECTICUT: Fails to Plan for COVID-19 Outbreak, Wilkes Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Wilkes, Barbara Flood, Vincent Ardizzone, Gail Litsky,
Carson Mueller, On behalf of themselves and  all other persons
similarly situated v. Ned Lamont, Governor; Miriam E.
Delphin-Rittmon, Commissioner of DMHAS, Hal Smith; CEO of Whiting
Forensic Hospital; Lakisha Hyatt; CEO of Connecticut Valley
Hospital; State of Connecticut; Department of Mental Health and
Addiction Services; Whiting Forensic Hospital, and Connecticut
Valley Hospital, Case No. 3:20-cv-00594-JCH (D. Conn., April 30,
2020), is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 to enforce the
constitutional right of all patients, at two Connecticut inpatient
psychiatric facilities, to safe conditions of confinement.

The Plaintiffs also assert the supplemental jurisdiction of the
Court for state statutory claims pursuant to the Connecticut
Patients' Bill of Rights. The psychiatric facilities are the
Connecticut Valley Hospital and Whiting Forensic Hospital.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to plan for
an infection outbreak in the hospitals; failed to provide and
ensure social distancing of patients; and failed adequately and
timely to test staff and patients for Covid-19. The Plaintiffs
contend that such failure resulted in or substantially contributed
to Covid-19 infections and outbreaks in staff and patients.

The Plaintiffs are patients of the psychiatric facilities.

Connecticut is a U.S. state in southern New England that has a mix
of coastal cities and rural areas dotted with small towns.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kirk W. Lowry, Esq.
          CONNECTICUT LEGAL RIGHTS PROJECT
          CVH-Beers Hall, 2nd Floor
          P.O. Box 351, Silver Street
          Middletown, CT 06457
          Telephone: (860) 262-5017
          Facsimile: (860) 262-5035
          E-mail: klowry@clrp.org


CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Denies COVID Insurance Claims, BBMS Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BBMS, LLC d/b/a ALL A' BLOOM v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Case
No. 4:20-cv-00353-BP (W.D. Mo., May 1, 2020), is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated against
Continental for its breach of contract arising from its refusal to
pay claims for business income coverage losses related to the
COVID-19 crisis.

The Plaintiff's Continental policy, as well as those of the other
Business Income Breach class members are contracts under which the
Defendant was paid premiums in exchange for its promise to pay them
losses for claims covered by the policy, says the complaint.

COVID-19 caused direct physical loss and damage to the Plaintiff's
and the other Business Income Breach Class members' Covered
Properties, requiring suspension of operations at the Covered
Properties, according to the complaint. Losses caused by COVID-19,
thus, triggered the Business Income provision of Plaintiff and the
other Business Income Breach Class members' Continental policies.

In the Special Property Coverage Form, the Plaintiff contends that
the Defendant agreed to pay for its insureds' actual loss of
Business Income sustained due to the necessary suspension of its
operations during the "period of restoration."

BBMS owns and operates a flower shop in Lee's Summit, Jackson
County, Missouri under the name All A' Bloom.

Continental is authorized to write, sell and issue insurance
policies providing property and business income coverage in
Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew V. Bartle, Esq.
          David L. Marcus, Esq.
          BARTLE & MARCUS LLC
          116 W. 47th Street, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 256-4614
          Facsimile: (816) 222-0534
          E-mail: mbartle@bmlawkc.com
                  dmarcus@bmlawkc.com

               - and -

          M. Blake Heath, Esq.
          917 W. 43rsd Street, Suite 100
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 931-0048
          Facsimile: (816) 931-4803
          E-mail: blake@heathinjurylaw.com


CROWN CASTLE: Continues to Defend Putative Securities Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Castle International Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend putative securities class action suits in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In February and March 2020, putative securities class action suits
were filed in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey against the Company and certain of its current officers.


The lawsuits were filed on behalf of investors that purchased or
otherwise acquired stock of the Company between February 26, 2018
and February 26, 2020.

The allegations relate to allegedly false or misleading statements
or other failures to disclose information about the Company's
business, operations and prospects.

The complaints seek unspecified money damages and the award of
plaintiffs' costs and expenses incurred in the respective class
action.

The Company is currently unable to determine the likelihood of an
outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any,
with respect to these lawsuits.

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends
to defend itself vigorously.

Crown Castle International Corp. owns, operates and leases shared
wireless infrastructure, including towers and other structures like
rooftops and small cell networks supported by fiber. The
Houston-based Company's wireless infrastructure is geographically
dispersed throughout the U.S., including Puerto Rico. The company
is based in Houston, Texas.


CSAA INSURANCE: Misrepresents Homeowners' Policies, Horne Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLOTTE HORNE and WILBERT HORNE, individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. CSAA INSURANCE Exchange and DOES 1
to 100, inclusive, Case No. CGC020-584267 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco Cty., April 28, 2020), arises from and related to the
Defendants' misrepresentations regarding the Plaintiffs'
homeowners' insurance policies, as well as related misconduct in
violation to the Business & Professions Code and California common
law.

The Plaintiffs own property, including buildings or other
structures and personal property, located at 265 Wall Road, in
Napa, California. This property was covered under a written
homeowners' insurance policy, purchased from CSAA Insurance
Exchange in 1984 and renewed on July 1, 2017. At the time the
Plaintiffs renewed their policy, on an annual basis since the
policy was created, CSAA made statements regarding the property's
replacement cost but allegedly failed to describe to the Plaintiffs
how it determined the replacement cost and failed to provide the
Plaintiffs with documentation regarding the replacement cost
calculations, according to the complaint.

On October 8, 2017, the Plaintiffs' property was destroyed. The
Plaintiffs assert that the event that caused the loss was covered
under the Horne's homeowners' insurance policy. The replacement
cost of the loss exceeded the policy limits of the Plaintiffs'
policy, resulting in past and ongoing economic injury, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs seek actual and compensatory damages, civil
penalties, punitive damages, restitution, equitable relief, costs
and expenses of litigation including attorneys' fees.

CSAA Insurance was founded in 2010. The Company's line of business
includes providing insurance agent and broker services for a range
of insurance types.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert S. Arns, Esq.
          Jonathan E. Davis, Esq.
          Shounak S. Dharap, Esq.
          THE ARNS LAW FIRM
          515 Folsom St., 3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA
          Telephone: (415) 495-7800
          Facsimile: (415) 495-7888
          E-mail: rsa@arnslaw.com
                  jed@arnslaw.com
                  ssd@arnslaw.com

               - and -

          E. Gerard Mannion, Esq.
          Demian I. Oksenendler, Esq.
          MANNION LOWE & OKSENENDLER
          655 Montgomery Street, Suite No. 1900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 733-1050
          Facsimile: (415) 434-4810
          E-mail: gerry@mlolawyers.com
                  demian@mlolawyers.com


CULLEN/FROST: Frost Bank Faces CARES Act Related Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Cullen/Frost Bankers, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that Frost Bank continues to
defend class action suits related to its unspecified violations of
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the "CARES
Act") and the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) 7(a) loan
program in connection with Frost Bank's participation in the
Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).

Purported class action lawsuits have been filed against Frost Bank
in Federal and Texas State courts alleging, among other claims,
unspecified violations of the CARES Act and the SBA's 7(a) loan
program in connection with Frost Bank's participation in the PPP.

The lawsuits seek monetary damages and injunctive relief.

Frost Bank believes the claims to be without merit.

Based in San Antonio, Tex., Cullen/Frost Bankers, Inc. is a
financial holding company and a bank holding company. Through its
subsidiaries, the Company provides products and services throughout
numerous Texas markets, including commercial and consumer banking,
trust and investment management, mutual funds, investment banking,
insurance, brokerage, leasing, asset-based lending, treasury
management and item processing.


DESIGNER BRANDS: Laguardia TCPA Suit Moved From Calif. to Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC LAGUARDIA, SOPHIA
WINGATE, LINDSAY RUCKER, AND NICOLE AUSTIN, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. DESIGNER BRANDS INC., f.k.a.
DSW, Inc., an Ohio corporation; and DSW SHOE WAREHOUSE, INC., a
Missouri corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-01568 (Filed Aug. 20, 2019),
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio (Columbus) on May 8, 2020.

The Southern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-02311-SDM-CMV to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison.

The lawsuit demands $5 million in damages alleging violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiffs brought this class action against DSW to stop it
from making unsolicited and auto-dialed "spam" text message calls
to cellular phones, and to obtain redress for all persons injured
by this illegal conduct.

DSW sells brand name and designer footwear and accessories. DSW
operates more than 500 stores in 44 states.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alex M. Tomasevic, Esq.
          Craig McKenzie Nicholas, Esq.
          NICHOLAS AND BUTLER LLP
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: atomasevic@nblaw.org
                  cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org

               - and -

          Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Spencer, Esq.
          THE SPENCER LAW FIRM
          903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 220
          San Clemente, CA 92673
          Telephone: (949) 240-8595
          Facsimile: (949) 240-8515
          E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net

               - and -

          Jeffrey Wilens, Esq.
          LAKESHORE LAW CENTER
          18340 Yorba Linda Boulevard, Suite 107-610
          Yorba Linda, CA 92886
          Telephone: (714) 854-7205
          Facsmile: (714) 854-7206
          E-mail: jeff@lakeshorelaw.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Marshall Baker, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 229-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
          E-mail: mbaker@akingump.com

               - and -

          Meredith Slawe, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Suite 4100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 965-1202
          Facsimile: (215) 965-1210
          E-mail: mslawe@akingump.com

               - and -

          Michael W. McTigue, Jr., Esq.
          Michael J Stortz, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Suite 4100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 965-1265
          Facsimile: (215) 965-1210
          E-mail: mmctigue@akingump.com
                  mstortz@akingump.com


DOUYU INT'L: Vincent Wong Law Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class action has been
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in DouYu International
Holdings Limited. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

DouYu International Holdings Limited (DOYU)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/douyu-international-holdings-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=6184&wire=1

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 26, 2020

Class Period: stock in the initial public offering pursuant and/or
traceable to the documents used by defendants to conduct the
initial public offering.

Allegations against DOYU include that: as of the initial public
offering: (i) DouYu's risks related to its top streamers had
materialized, including that: (a) a top streamer was actively
misrepresenting herself on DouYu's platform;and (b) costs
associated with retaining top streamers was swelling; (ii) DouYu
did not ensure that all of its products were fully compliant with
current regulatory requirements before those products became
available online; and (iii) key interactive features of DouYu's
"lucky draw"were non-compliant with current regulatory
requirements.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


DR. PEPPER: Aguiar Sues over Unjust Termination
-----------------------------------------------
The case, JOSE MANUEL AGUIAR, Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. DR. PEPPER/SEVEN UP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-21834-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2020) arises from
Defendant's alleged violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant on May 15, 2015 and was fired
on May 4, 2017.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff was suspended from work by
Defendant on December 14, 2016 when had an injury at work in
December 2016 due to cancer which he has learned while he was on
leave. When Plaintiff was fit enough to return to work after
surgery with his doctor's clearance and with no restrictions, he
then terminated by Defendant on May 4, 2017.

The complaint asserts that Defendant intentionally interfered with
Plaintiff's rights when he was terminated by Defendant despite
being notified of his need for leave under the FMLA.

Plaintiff demands for reinstatement, compensatory damages,
liquidated damages, front pay, backpay, prejudgment interest,
injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs.

Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. is soft-drink manufacturing company.[BN]


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary A. Costales, Esq.
          GARY A. COSTALES, P.A.
          1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1440
          Miami, FL 33131
          Tel: (305)375-9510
          Fax: (305)375-9511
          Email: gary@youremploymentattorney.com


DUKE UNIVERSITY: Doe Seeks Tuition Refunds Over COVID-19 Closing
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DUKE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00414 (M.D.N.C., May
8, 2020), alleges that despite sending students home and closing
its campus, the Defendant continues to charge for tuition, fees,
and room and board as if nothing has changed, continuing to reap
the financial benefit of millions of dollars from students.

The Defendant does so despite students' complete inability to
continue school as normal, occupy campus buildings and dormitories,
or avail themselves of school programs and events, the Plaintiff
claims.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the State of Minnesota.
He was enrolled as a full-time student for the Spring 2020 academic
term at the Defendant.

The Plaintiff brings this action because Plaintiff and the Class
Members did not receive the full value of the services paid and did
not receive the benefits of in-person instruction.

According to the complaint, while some colleges and universities
have promised appropriate and/or proportional refunds, the
Defendant excludes itself from such other institutions treating
students fairly, equitably, and as required by the law. As a
result, the Defendant's actions have financially damaged the
Plaintiff and the Class Members.

This class action complaint comes during a time of hardship for so
many Americans, with each day bringing different news regarding the
COVID-19, prompted colleges and universities across the country to
shut down their campuses, evict students from campus residence
halls, and switch to online "distance" learning.

Duke University is an institution of higher learning located in
Durham, North Carolina. Founded in 1924, Duke University has a
current enrollment of approximately 15,634 students, across 10
schools and colleges. The Defendant provides class members with
campus facilities, in-person classes, as well as a variety of other
facilities for which the Defendant charges the Plaintiff and the
class members.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Michael Malone, Esq.
          HENDREN, REDWINE & MALONE, PLLC
          4600 Marriott Drive, Suite 150
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 420-7867
          Facsimile: (919) 420-0475
          E-mail: mmalone@hendrenmalone.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
          Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  dank@hbsslaw.com
                  whitneys@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew S. Levetown, Esq.
          IVEY & LEVETOWN, LLP
          6411 Ivy Lane, Suite 304
          Greenbelt, MD 20770
          Telephone: (703) 618-22641
          E-mail: asl@iveylevetown.com


DUTCH POT: Faces Osbourne ADEA Suit Alleging Age Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Suzette Osbourne, on its own behalf and others similarly situated
v. DUTCH POT JAMAICAN RESTAURANT, INC., Case No. CACE-20-008014
(Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., May 13, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act and the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Around December 2018 and the second week of February 2019, Mrs.
Cherry Marshall of the Defendant, directly made a comment about
firing all the older employees to the Plaintiff and other employees
during a meeting of all store workers. Within weeks of the
Defendant making the February 2019 comments about age
discrimination, the Plaintiff was terminated. Other employees 40
years or older, were also terminated, creating a pattern and
practice of age discrimination, according to the complaint.

The Defendant and its officers and/managers did not act in good
faith nor did they have an objective, reasonable ground to believe
that their action did not violate the law, the Plaintiff contends.
As a direct and proximate result of the acts, the Plaintiff has
suffered damages: wages, both in the past, present, and future, as
well as compensatory damages, etc., says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as a server at the Defendant's restaurant
since 2015 and was terminated on March 1, 2019.

The Defendant, is an employer within Broward County, Lauderhill,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alberto Naranjo, Esq.
          AN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          7900 Oak Lane #400
          Miami Lakes, FL 33016
          Phone: 305-942-8070
          Email: an@anlawfirm.com


EDISON INT'L: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Woolsey Fire
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edison International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend two purported class action suits related to the Woolsey
Fire.

In November 2018, wind-driven wildfires impacted portions of
Southern California Edison Company 's(SCE's) service territory and
caused substantial damage to both residential and business
properties and service outages for SCE customers.

The largest of these fires, known as the Woolsey Fire, originated
in Ventura County and burned acreage located in both Ventura and
Los Angeles Counties.

According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (CAL FIRE), the Woolsey Fire burned almost 100,000
acres, destroyed an estimated 1,643 structures, damaged an
estimated 364 structures and resulted in three fatalities. Two
additional fatalities have also been associated with the Woolsey
Fire.

As of April 27, 2020, SCE was aware of at least 226 lawsuits,
representing approximately 4,400 plaintiffs, related to the Woolsey
Fire naming SCE as a defendant. One hundred and forty five of these
lawsuits also name Edison International as a defendant based on its
ownership and alleged control of SCE.

At least two of the lawsuits were filed as purported class actions.


The lawsuits, which have been filed in the superior courts of
Ventura and Los Angeles Counties allege, among other things,
negligence, inverse condemnation, personal injury, wrongful death,
trespass, private nuisance, and violations of the public utilities
and health and safety codes.

The Woolsey Fire lawsuits have been coordinated in the Los Angeles
Superior Court.

Three categories of plaintiffs have filed lawsuits against SCE and
Edison International relating to the Woolsey Fire: individual
plaintiffs, subrogation plaintiffs and public entity plaintiffs.

In November 2019, SCE and Edison International reached a settlement
with certain local public entity plaintiffs in the Woolsey Fire
litigation under which SCE paid the local public entity plaintiffs
an aggregate of $210 million and those local public entity
plaintiffs released SCE and Edison International from all claims
and potential claims in the Woolsey Fire litigation and/or related
to or arising from the Woolsey Fire. Edison International and SCE
did not admit liability as part of the settlement.

Edison International, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in the
United States. It generates electricity through hydroelectric,
diesel/liquid petroleum gas, natural gas, nuclear, and photovoltaic
sources. Edison International was founded in 1886 and is based in
Rosemead, California. Edison International, incorporated on April
20, 1987, is the holding company of Southern California Edison
Company (SCE).


EDISON INT'L: June 15 Bellwether Trial Vacated Due to COVID-19
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edison International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the bellwether jury
trial in Thomas Fire and Koenigstein Fire Litigation, previously
scheduled for June 15, 2020, has been vacated due to the
wide-spread disruption being caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

In December 2017, wind-driven wildfires impacted portions of
Southern California Edison Company's (SCE's) service territory,
causing loss of life, substantial damage to both residential and
business properties, and service outages for SCE customers.

The Ventura County Fire Department (VCFD) and the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) have
determined that the largest of the 2017 fires originated on
December 4, 2017, in the Anlauf Canyon area of Ventura County (the
investigating agencies refer to this fire as the "Thomas Fire"),
followed shortly thereafter by the Koenigstein Fire.

According to CAL FIRE, the Thomas and Koenigstein Fires burned over
280,000 acres, destroyed or damages an estimated 1,343 structures
and resulted in two fatalities.

As of April 27, 2020, SCE was aware of at least 330 lawsuits,
representing approximately 5,000 plaintiffs, related to the Thomas
and Koenigstein Fires naming SCE as a defendant.

One hundred and forty-three of these lawsuits also name Edison
International as a defendant based on its ownership and alleged
control of SCE. At least four of the lawsuits were filed as
purported class actions.

The lawsuits, which have been filed in the superior courts of
Ventura, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties allege, among other
things, negligence, inverse condemnation, trespass, private
nuisance, and violations of the public utilities and health and
safety codes.

The lawsuits have been coordinated in the Los Angeles Superior
Court.

Three categories of plaintiffs have filed lawsuits against SCE and
Edison International relating to the Thomas Fire, Koenigstein Fire
and Montecito Mudslides: individual plaintiffs, subrogation
plaintiffs and public entity plaintiffs.

An initial jury trial for a limited number of plaintiffs, sometimes
referred to as a bellwether jury trial, on certain fire only
matters previously scheduled for June 15, 2020 was vacated due to
the wide-spread disruption being caused by the COVID-19 pandemic
and is expected to be rescheduled after the courtrooms in the Los
Angeles Superior Court open for non-essential functions.

The judge assigned to the litigation has suggested that the revised
date for the initial bellwether trial could be as early as August
24, 2020.

In November 2019, SCE and Edison International reached a settlement
with certain local public entity plaintiffs in the Thomas Fire,
Koenigstein Fire and Montecito Mudslides litigation under which SCE
paid those local public entity plaintiffs parties an aggregate of
$150 million and the plaintiffs released SCE and Edison
International from all claims and potential claims in the Thomas
Fire, Koenigstein Fire and Montecito Mudslides litigation and/or
related to or arising from the Thomas Fire, Koenigstein Fire or
Montecito Mudslides.

Certain of the local public entity plaintiffs will retain the right
to pursue certain indemnity claims against SCE and Edison
International.

Edison International and SCE did not admit liability as part of the
settlement.

Edison International, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in the
United States. It generates electricity through hydroelectric,
diesel/liquid petroleum gas, natural gas, nuclear, and photovoltaic
sources. Edison International was founded in 1886 and is based in
Rosemead, California. Edison International, incorporated on April
20, 1987, is the holding company of Southern California Edison
Company (SCE).


EHEALTH INC: Bertrand Sues Over 12% Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
PATRICE BERTRAND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EHEALTH, INC., SCOTT N. FLANDERS,
DEREK N. YUNG, and DAVID K. FRANCIS, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-02967-RS (N.D. Cal., April 30, 2020) is a federal
securities class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased
or otherwise acquired eHealth securities between March 19, 2018 and
April 7, 2020, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

According to the complaint, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) eHealth
utilized highly aggressive accounting and modeling assumptions;
(ii) eHealth faced a skyrocketing rate of member churn, resulting
from the Company's pursuit of low quality, lossmaking growth; (iii)
eHealth relied heavily on direct response television advertising,
which attracts an unprofitable, high churn enrollee; and (iv) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

On April 8, 2020, pre-market, analyst Muddy Waters Research
published a report in which it wrote that "EHTH's highly aggressive
accounting masks what we believe is a significantly unprofitable
business." Muddy Waters continued that "EHTH's persistence
assumptions in its LTV1 model seem highly aggressive when compared
to reality," that "[a]fter ASC 606 went into effect, member churn
immediately skyrocketed," and that "EHTH is pursuing low quality,
lossmaking growth while its LTVs are based on lower churn,
pre-growth cohorts." Furthermore, Muddy Waters concluded that "the
key driver of growth since 2018 has been EHTH's reliance on Direct
Response television advertising, which attracts an unprofitable,
high churn enrollee. To generate this unprofitable growth, EHTH has
been incinerating cash, which we expect it to continue to do until
this value destruction slows down or stops. EHTH management is, in
our view, running a massive stock promotion."

On this news, eHealth's stock price fell $12.82 per share, or
approximately 12%, to close at $103.20 per share on April 8, 2020.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

eHealth, Inc. is a California-based health insurance marketplace
with a technology and service platform that provides consumer
engagement, education, and health insurance enrollment
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

                    - and -  

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com

                    - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

                    - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          Email: peretz@bgandg.com

EHEALTH INC: Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set for June 8
----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on April 26 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

eHealth, Inc. (EHTH)

EHTH Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 19, 2018 -
April 7, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 8, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ehealth-inc-loss-form?prid=6191&wire=1

The complaint alleges that eHealth, Inc. issued materially false
and/or misleading information and/or failed to disclose: (1) its
highly aggressive accounting and modeling assumptions; (2) its
skyrocketing rate of member churn, resulting from eHealth's pursuit
of low quality, lossmaking growth; (3) its reliance on direct
response television advertising, which attracts an unprofitable,
high churn enrollee; and (4) that as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

Becton Dickinson & Company (BDX)

BDX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 5, 2019
- February 5, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 27, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/becton-dickinson-company-loss-form?prid=6191&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Becton
Dickinson & Company made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) certain of Becton's
Alaris infusion pumps experienced software errors and alarm
prioritization issues; (2) as a result, the Company was investing
in remediation efforts to address these product issues, rather than
a software upgrade to "make enhancements;" (3) the Company was
reasonably likely to face regulatory delays in connection with the
software remediation; (4) as a result of the foregoing, Becton was
reasonably likely to recall certain of its Alaris infusion pumps;
and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (INO)

INO Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 14, 2020
- March 9, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 12, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/inovio-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-form?prid=6191&wire=1

According to a filed complaint, throughout the class period,
defendants made misleading statements about the company's
development of a purported vaccine for the novel coronavirus,
artificially inflating the company's share price and resulting in
significant investor losses.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://www.zlk.com/ [GN]


EL MAMBI REST: Maria Seeks Minimum and OT Pay Under FLSA and NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yesenia Javier Maria (a.k.a. Wanda), individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. EL MAMBI REST CORP. (D/B/A MAMBI), EL
MAMBI STEAKHOUSE CORP. (D/B/A MAMBI), RAUL ACOSTA, RAULITO ACOSTA,
GABRIEL DOE, RAFAELINA (A.K.A. NINA) BAUTISTA, and GIOVANNI
BAUTISTA, Case No. 1:20-cv-03707 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2020), is
brought to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation
for the hours that she worked, according to the complaint. Rather,
the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium.

Plaintiff Javier Maria (a.k.a. Wanda) was employed as a counter
server and a dishwasher at the Defendants' restaurant.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Dominican restaurant,
located at 4181 Broadway, in New York City, under the name
"Mambi."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


EL POLLO: Settlement Payment Made in Calif. Labor Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 25, 2020, that a settlement payment
was made on February 28, 2020, in the class action suits related to
the company's violations of California Labor Laws.

On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class
action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange, under the caption Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco,
Inc., et al (Case No. 30-2014-00707367-CU-OE-CXC) on behalf of all
putative class members (all hourly employees from 2010 to the
present) alleging certain violations of California labor laws,
including failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide
meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage
statements.

The putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies include
compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement
of profits, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

No specific amount of damages sought was specified in the
complaint.

The court recently certified two classes of plaintiffs - one class
encompasses restaurant employees who were not provided proper rest
breaks because they were not allowed to leave the premises during
their breaks and the other class encompasses restaurant employees
who were required to wait at the restaurant after they finished
working for the night until the manager set the alarm for safety
purposes.

The parties reached a settlement in principle on January 24, 2019
of all claims brought on behalf of the 32,000+ putative class
members in the Olvera, as well as all claims for failure to pay
overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest
breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage statements brought in
the class actions captioned Martha Perez v. El Pollo Loco, Inc.
(Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC624001), Maria Vega, et al.
v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.
BC649719), and Gonzalez v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Los Angeles
Superior Court Case No. BC712867).

The settlement reached in principle in the Olvera, Perez, Vega, and
Gonzalez actions resolves all potential claims from April 12, 2010
through April 1, 2019 that El Pollo Loco restaurant employees may
have against El Pollo Loco for failure to pay for all compensation
owed, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal
periods and rest breaks and failure to provide itemized wage
statements, among other wage and hour related claims.

A $16.3 million accrual of an expected settlement amount related to
this matter was recorded as of December 26, 2018, and the court
formally approved the settlement on January 31, 2020. The
settlement payment was made on February 28, 2020.

Purported class actions alleging wage and hour violations are
commonly filed against California employers. The Company fully
expects to have to defend against similar lawsuits in the future.

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiary El Pollo Loco,
Inc., develops, franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service
restaurants under the El Pollo Loco name. The company was formerly
known as Chicken Acquisition Corp. and changed its name to El Pollo
Loco Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Costa Mesa, California.


ELECTRICAL BUILDERS: Court Stays Discovery in Raykovitz
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Georgia stayed discovery in the case captioned FRANK RAYKOVITZ,
Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
ELECTRICAL BUILDERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. CV 119-137 (S.D.
Ga.).

Defendant has moved to stay all discovery pending resolution of its
motion to dismiss the case.  

The Court has broad inherent power to stay discovery until
preliminary issues can be settled which may be dispositive of some
important aspect of the case.

Based on a preliminary peek at the defense motion, the Court finds
an immediate and clear possibility of a ruling which may be
dispositive of some important aspect of the case. Indeed, Defendant
has moved for dismissal of the case in its entirety.

Plaintiff contends a stay will be injurious because the statute of
limitations for other putative party plaintiffs is eroding.
Plaintiff argues discovery may be required for determination of
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of the class
action, citing numerous cases from district courts within the
Eleventh Circuit.  

However, Defendant also cites numerous cases within the Eleventh
Circuit allowing a stay of discovery pending conditional
certification. Further, Plaintiff's filing of his motion for
conditional certification shows he believes he has enough
information to warrant a favorable ruling, and consideration of
whether discovery is necessary for resolution of Plaintiff's motion
for conditional certification is a matter entirely within the
discretion of the presiding District Judge.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge BRIAN K. EPPS issued an order, a
full-text copy of which is available at https://tinyurl.com/toda2dj
from Leagle.com, staying all discovery in this action pending
resolution of Defendant's motions to dismiss, and staying all
discovery related to the "putative class members" pending
resolution of Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification.
Should any portion of the case remain after resolution of both
motions, the parties shall confer and submit a Rule 26(f) Report,
with proposed case deadlines, within seven days of the presiding
District Judge's ruling.

Frank Raykovitz, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Dunlap -
adunlap@mybackwages.com - Josephson Dunlap LLP, pro hac vice,
Taylor A. Jones
- tjones@mybackwages.com - Josephson Dunlap LLP, pro hac vice, Troy
A. Lanier , Troy A. Lanier, PC, 453 Greene Street, Augusta, GA,
30903 & William R. Liles , Josephson Dunlap LLP, 11 Greenway Plaza,
Suite 3050, Houston, TX 7704, 6pro hac vice.

Electrical Builders, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anne T. Regan
- aregan@hjlawfirm.com - Hellmuth & Johnson, pro hac vice & Bradley
T. Adler , Freeman, Mathis & Gary, LLP, 100 Galleria Parkway, Suite
1600 Atlanta, Georgia 30339-5948

ELITE AIRLINE: De Rosario Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Damaris Lopez De Rosario, on behalf of herself, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. ELITE AIRLINE LINEN
OF NEW YORK, INC., d/b/a ROYAL AIRLINE LINEN OF NEW YORK INC., and
SANDOFRESH CLEANING SERVICE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02182
(E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2020), is brought for damages and equitable
relief based upon the Defendants' violations of the Plaintiff's
rights guaranteed to her by the minimum and overtime wage
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

At no time during the relevant period did Defendants ever pay the
Plaintiff one and one-half times her regular rate of pay, or one
and one-half times the minimum wage, if greater, for any hours that
she worked over forty in a week, according to the complaint.
Further, the Defendants required the Plaintiff to work shifts that
exceeded ten hours from start to finish throughout her employment,
yet for those days failed to pay her an additional hour's pay at
the applicable minimum wage rate.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly paid "Packer"
and/or "Ironer."

Elite is a New York corporation that provides laundry services to
the airline and hotel industry throughout the United States,
including in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and
Maryland, and Sandofresh.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 679-5000
          Fax: (212) 679-5005


ENEL AMERICAS: Class Suit Against Emgesa Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Enel Americas SA said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company expects that
a first judgment will be issued before the end of 2020 in the class
action suit filed against Emgesa S.A. ESP, the Colombian Ministry
of Environment and Development and the Colombian Ministry of Mines
and Energy, Comepez S.A.

A class action lawsuit filed against Emgesa S.A. ESP, the Colombian
Ministry of Environment and Development and the Colombian Ministry
of Mines and Energy, Comepez S.A. and other fish farm and artisanal
fishermen companies, is currently under review by the Huila
Administrative Court.

Fishermen are seeking the protection of collective rights and a
healthy environment, public health, food security and safety and
the prevention of technically foreseeable disasters.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs are seeking the issuance of an order
compelling the entities to immediately take the necessary
corrective and preventive measures to halt the imminent danger of
massive fish mortality in the Betania reservoir fish farming
projects, relating to the filling of the reservoir and the
operation of the El Quimbo hydroelectric project.

This lawsuit does not have a specified monetary amount because of
its nature as an action regarding the protection of collective
rights.

Therefore, no provision has been made. The matter has been pending
decision since June 18, 2018.

During the evidentiary stage, the environmental authorities,
National Environmental Licensing Authority (ANLA) and the Regional
Autonomous Corporation of Upper Magdalena (CAM) jointly presented a
report in which they stated that the company had complied with the
obligations imposed by the Administrative Court within the
injunctive measures, even though the matter has no quantified
claims.

The final arguments were presented by Emgesa on June 15, 2018, and
the matter was submitted for consideration on June 18, 2018.

The company expects that a first judgment will be issued before the
end of 2020.

Enel Americas SA operates as an electricity utility company. The
Company generates, transmits, and distributes electricity. Enel
Americas serves customers in Latin America.


ENEL AMERICAS: Codensa Pays COP24,400 Million
---------------------------------------------
Enel Americas SA said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Codensa S.A. E.S.P.
(Codensa), a Colombian distribution subsidiary that operates mainly
in Bogota and whose voting power is controlled by the company, paid
COP24,400 million (ThUS$7,428), which it considers its obligation
to pay under  2014 reassessment agreements.

Henry Andrew Barbosa filed a class-action lawsuit against Codensa
S.A. E.S.P. (Codensa) and the Special Public Services
Administrative Unit (UAESP) of the Bogota Capital District before
the Tenth Administrative Judge of the Bogota Capital District.

Subsequently, Codensa filed an action for nullification and
restoration of rights against the UAESP, which is currently pending
before the Administrative Court of Cundinamarca.

In the class action, the judge ordered Codensa and the UAESP to
reassess the 1997 Public Lighting Agreement signed between them,
since it was determined that there were 8,661 fewer street lights
than Codensa had taken into account in its billing.

In 2014, the parties agreed to the reassessment and carried out a
transaction for the periods 1998 to 2004, resulting in a debt of
COP14,433 million (ThUS$4,394) owed by Codensa to the UAESP. By an
order of June 1, 2017, the Court refused to consider the
above-mentioned 2014 agreement and instead ordered the UAESP to
carry out a unilateral assessment.

In compliance with the order, the UAEPS issued Resolution No.
000730 of December 18, 2017, where it determined that Codensa
should pay COP113,082 million (ThUS$34,426). The nullification and
restoration of rights action filed against the UAESP was in the
notification stage and the UAESP was in the process of answering
the demand.

On August 21, 2019, the Administrative Court of Cundinamarca at the
initial hearing determined that no further evidence was needed and
ruled against Codensa, subtracting any value from the reassessment
agreed by the parties in 2014.

An appeal was filed and submitted to the Council of State. The
UAESP had begun the collection process, but the collection was
suspended with the admission of the nullification action.

Codensa paid COP24,400 million (ThUS$7,428), which it considers its
obligation to pay under the 2014 reassessment agreements. In total,
the nullification action has an approximate value of COP88,698
million (ThUS$27,003).

Enel Americas SA operates as an electricity utility company. The
Company generates, transmits, and distributes electricity. Enel
Americas serves customers in Latin America.


ERIE INSURANCE: Faces Menns Suit Alleging Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------------------
Menns Inc. d/b/a The Tavern on Clark, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE and ERIE
INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02895 (N.D. Ill., May 14,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for their breach of their
contractual obligation under common all-risk commercial property
insurance policies to indemnify the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated, who have suffered losses due to measures put in place by
civil authorities' stay-at-home or shelter-in-place orders since
March 15, 2020.

Following this advice for individuals to adopt far-reaching social
distancing measures, and in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many
state government administrations across the nation recognized the
need to take steps to protect the health and safety of their
residents from the human-to-human and surface-to-human spread of
COVID-19. As a result, many governmental entities entered civil
authority orders suspending or severely curtailing business
operations of businesses that interact with the public and provide
gathering places for the individuals. Currently, almost all states
within the United States have issued some sort of "stay-at-home"
order and ordered private non-essential business operations to
close.

The Defendants, and most insurance companies, who have issued
all-risk commercial property insurance policies with business
interruption coverage, are denying the obligation to pay for
business income losses and other covered expenses incurred by
policyholders for the physical loss and damage to the insured
property from measures put in place by the civil authorities in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Plaintiff avers.

This action seeks a declaratory judgment that affirms that the
COVID-19 pandemic and the corresponding response by civil
authorities triggers coverage, has caused physical property loss
and damage to the insured property, provides coverage for future
civil authority orders that result in future suspensions or
curtailments of business  finds that the Defendants are liable for
the losses suffered by policyholders. The Plaintiff brings this
action on behalf of a proposed class of policyholders, who paid
premiums in exchange for all-risk commercial property insurance
Policies that included lost business income and extra expense
coverage.

The Plaintiff operates a restaurant and bar in Rockford, Illinois.

Erie Exchange writes property and casualty insurance and is
licensed to issue insurance in the State of Illinois and other
states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Barz, Esq.
          Frank A. Richter, Esq.
          William J. Edelman, Esq.
          Gina M. Buschatzke, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312/674-4674
          Fax: 312/674-4676
          Email: jbarz@rgrdlaw.com
                 frichter@rgrdlaw.com
                 wedelman@rgrdlaw.com
                 gbuschatzke@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (631) 367-7100
          Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Bradley M. Beall, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561/750-3000
          Fax: 561/750-3364

               - and –

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: (973) 994-1700
          Fax: 973/994-1744
          Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                 ltaylor@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 584-0700
          Fax: 212/584-0799
          Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
                 sweiss@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Robert Schachter, Esq.
          ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
          41 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Phone: 212/223-3900
          Fax: 212/371-5969
          Email: rschachter@zsz.com

               - and -

          Guri Ademi, Esq.
          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Phone: (414) 482-8000
          Fax: (414) 482-8001
          Email: gademi@ademilaw.com
                 sademi@ademilaw.com
                 jblythin@ademilaw.com


FAIR ISAAC: Monopolizes B2B Credit Score Market, Getten Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, GETTEN CREDIT COMPANY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated v. FAIR ISAAC CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02651 (N.D. Ill., May 1, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and
Section 4 of the Clayton Act.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly-situated entities who paid for a FICO Score from
Defendant and/or a credit bureau in the U.S. from at least as early
as January 1, 2006 until the present for commercial use, alleges
that the Defendant is engaged in illegal monopoly and
anticompetitive conduct including, but not limited to, exclusionary
agreements with credit bureaus and other distributors of
Defendant's FICO Scores and false and misleading media campaigns
against its competitors in order to achieve a high percentage of
market share in the B2B Credit Score Market. As a result of its
illegal actions, the Defendant's unlawful monopoly share has
suppressed competition, stymied innovation, limited access to
credit for millions of Americans, and increased the prices of FICO
Scores to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class members.

Getten Credit Company is family-owned independent finance company
that specializes in helping consumers with various financial needs
including debt consolidation, purchasing vehicles, and rebuilding
credit, with its principal place of business in Mendota,
Minnesota.

Fair Isaac Corporation is a data analytics company focused on
credit scoring services, with its principal place of business in
San Jose, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
         Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
         Melinda J. Morales, Esq.
         Michelle Perkovic, Esq.
         WEXLER WALLACE LLP
         55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Telephone: (312) 346-2222
         E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
                 mjm@wexlerwallace.com
                 mp@wexlerwallace.com

               - and –

         Dennis Stewart, Esq.
         GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
         600 B Street, 17th Floor
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 595-3200
         E-mail: dstewart@gustafsongluek.com

               - and –
         
         Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
         Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
         Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
         Joshua J. Rissman, Esq.
         Ling S. Wang, Esq.
         GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
         Canadian Pacific Plaza
         120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 333-8844
         E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                 dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                 mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
                 jrissman@gustafsongluek.com
                 lwang@gustafsongluek.com

               - and –
         
         Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
         Brant D. Penney, Esq.
         REINHARDT, WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
         332 Minnesota Street. Suite W-1050
         St. Paul, MN 55101
         Telephone: (651) 287-2100
         Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
         E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
                 b.penney@rwblawfirm.com

FCA US: Conceals Engine Defect to Buyers, Schmid et al. Allege
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE SCHMID, LUIS MUNOZ, SHERRI MCCALL, PAMELA ANDERSON, DANIEL
MCGORREY, and JOSHUA CAPLES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-11090-MAG-APP (E.D. Mich., May 4, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competitions
Law, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the New York General
Business Law, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law,
the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Act, the
Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act, and the Song–Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability, fraudulent concealment, unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated current and former owners and lessees of 2014
2020 Jeep Cherokees, 2015-2020 Jeep Renegades, 2017-2020 Jeep
Compasses, 2013-2016 Dodge Darts, 2015-2020 Ram ProMaster City's,
2015-2016 Chrysler 200's, and 2016-2020 Fiat 500X's vehicles
equipped with a 2.4L Tigershark multiair four-cylinder engine,
allege that the Defendant failed to disclose to the Plaintiffs and
Class members that the vehicles' engine has an oil consumption
defect despite its awareness of the issue since at least 2013. The
defect causes the Class vehicles to go into limp mode and to stall,
and, ultimately, will cause catastrophic damage to the engine to
the point that the entire engine needs to be replaced. The
Plaintiffs claim that the failure of the Defendant to inform them
about the engine's safety concern exposes them and other drivers to
serious risk of collision and injuries.

FCA US LLC is a designer, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of
motor vehicles, parts, and other products for sale in California
and the United States, with principal place of business located at
1000 Chrysler Drive, Auburn Hills, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Douglas L. Toering, Esq.
         Kenneth R. Chadwell, Esq.
         MANTESE HONIGMAN PC
         1361 E. Big Beaver Rd.
         Troy, MI 48083
         Telephone: (248) 457-9200
         E-mail: dtoering@manteselaw.com
                 kchadwell@manteselaw.com

               - and –
         
         Steven R. Weinmann, Esq.
         Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
         Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
         Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
         CAPSTONE LAW APC
         1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 556-4811

               - and –

         Timothy N. Mathews, Esq.
         Alex M. Kashurba, Esq.
         CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON SMITH LLP
         361 W. Lancaster Avenue
         Haverford, PA 19041
         Telephone: (610) 642-8500
         E-mail: tnm@chimicles.com
                 amk@chimicles.com

               - and –
         
         Russell D. Paul, Esq.
         Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq.
         Amey J. Park, Esq.
         Abigail J. Gertner, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 875-3000
         Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
         E-mail: rpaul@bm.net
                 josterwise@bm.net
                 apark@bm.net
                 agertner@bm.net

FCA US: Court Certifies California Class & Subclass in Alger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHAWN ALGER, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC f/k/a CHRYSLER
GROUP LLC, a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-CV-00360-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal.),
Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California (i) granted the Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representative and
Class Counsel, and (ii) denied the Defendant's Motion to Stay.

The Defendant, FCA US ("Chrysler"), sells millions of vehicles
throughout the United States.  Beginning in 2010, Chrysler began
equipping some of its vehicles with a purported safety device known
as an Active Head Restraint System ("AHR System").  Chrysler has
sold or leased approximately 279,000 vehicles with an AHR System in
California.  

An AHR System is a mechanism built into the vehicles' front
headrests that allows the headrests to "deploy" in the event of a
rear-end collision.  The AHR System works by splitting the headrest
into two sections; the padded front and the back.  In between the
front and back of the headrests are two powerful springs.  Much
like a mouse trap, the spring-loaded headrests stay in place
through the use of a hook that latches to a metal "striker pin."
When the sensors in the vehicle detect a rear-end collision, the
hook releases the pin and the spring-loaded headrest launches
forward.  If the AHR System works properly, it is intended to
reduce the risk of whiplash in the event of a rear-end collision.

The Plaintiff alleges that, for many Chrysler owners, the AHR
Systems do not work as intended; instead, the headrests
unexpectedly deploy without warning while the vehicle is in normal
operation and not in the midst of a crash.  He contends that the
AHR System failures are the result of a common design defect that
Chrysler failed to disclose to consumers.

On April 23, 2018, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, filed the operative Second Amended Class Action
Complaint against Chrysler asserting claims for: (1) violations of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (2) violations
of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (3) breach of
implied warranty under California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
Act; and (4) breach of express warranty.

The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representative and
Class Counsel, and the Defendant's Motion to Stay.

The Plaintiff seeks an order certifying the following classes
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

       a. The Damages Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3): All persons
in California who currently own or lease, or who have owned or
leased, any Class Vehicle manufactured by Chrysler or any of its
subsidiaries or affiliates that is equipped with an Automatic Head
Restraint (AHR) system.

     b. The Injunctive Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2): All persons
in California who currently own or lease any Class Vehicle
manufactured by Chrysler or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates
that is equipped with an AHR system.

The Class Vehicles comprise the following make-year and model
Chrysler Vehicles: 2010-2018 Dodge Journey, 2010-2011 Dodge Nitro,
2010-2012 Jeep Liberty, 2010-2017 Jeep Patriot or Compass,
2010-2012 Dodge Caliber, 2010-2018 Dodge Caravan, 2011-2018 Dodge
Durango, 2011-2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee, and 2010-2014
Sebring/Avenger.

Having conducted a rigorous analysis, including consideration of
all evidence submitted in favor of and in opposition to the
Plaintiff's Motion, Judge England finds that the class, including
the Class Vehicles listed, satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a)
and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, the Court denied the Defendant's Motion to Stay, and
granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and
Appointment of Class Representative and Counsel.

The Court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class and subclass as to the
economic damages claims set forth in the Second Amended Class
Action Complaint and did not certify any personal injury claims or
damages.

The class and subclass are defined as:

      (1) A California Class consisting of all persons in
          California who currently own or lease, or who have
          owned or leased any Class Vehicle manufactured by
          Chrysler, or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates,
          that is equipped with an Automatic Head Restraint
          System; and

      (2) a California CLRA Subclass consisting of all members
          of the California Class who are consumers within
          the meaning of California Civil Code Section 1761(d).

The Court excluded from the Class and Subclass: Chrysler, its
employees, officers, directors, and legal representatives; Class
Counsel and their employees; and the judicial officers and their
immediate family members and associated Court staff assigned to the
case.

The Court designated as the Class Vehicles the following model and
year FCA/Chrysler vehicles: 2010-2018 Dodge Journey; 2010-2011
Dodge Nitro; 2010-2012 Jeep Liberty; 2010-2017 Jeep Patriot or
Compass; 2010-2012 Dodge Caliber; 2010-2018 Dodge Caravan;
2011-2018 Dodge Durango; 2011-2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee; and
2010-2014 Sebring/Avenger.

The Court appointed (i) Shawn Alger as the representative of the
certified Class and Subclass; and (ii) the law firms of Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Kershaw, Cook and Talley PC
as the Class Counsel for the Class and Subclass.

The Court ordered the Class Counsel to prepare notice to the Class
and Subclass and submit the notice and plan for notice distribution
to the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 18, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/8vqzja from Leagle.com.

Shawn Alger, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth S. Byrd --
kbyrd@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Mark
P. Chalos -- mchalos@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and
Bernstein, LLP, Stuart C. Talley -- stuart@kctlegal.com --
Kershaw,
Cook & Talley PC & William A. Kershaw -- bill@kctlegal.com --
Kershaw, Cook & Talley PC.

FCA US LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Abirami Gnanadesigan -- agnanadesigan@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett
LLP, Dommond E. Lonnie -- dlonnie@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett,
LLP, Fred J. Fresard -- ffresard@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett
PLLC, pro hac vice, James P. Feeney -- jfeeney@dykema.com --
Dykema
Gossett PLLC & Brittany J. Mouzourakis -- BMouzourakis@dykema.com
-- Dykema Gossett, PLLC, pro hac vice.


FCA US: Johnston Sues Over Jeep Engine Oil Consumption Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT AND DEBORAH JOHNSTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00631-AWI-SAB (E.D. Cal., May 4, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violations of Unfair Competition Law,
breach of implied warranty pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act, breach of implied warranty pursuant to the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to disclose to the
Plaintiffs and to all others similarly-situated persons in the
United States who purchased or leased any of the Defendant's Jeep
vehicles equipped with a 2.4L Tigershark Inline 4-Cylinder engine
about the engine's oil consumption defect. The defect causes the
Class vehicles to go into limp mode and to stall, and, ultimately,
will cause catastrophic damage to the engine to the point that the
entire engine needs to be replaced. The Plaintiffs claim that the
failure of the Defendant to inform them about the engine's safety
concern exposes them and other drivers to serious risk of collision
and injuries.

FCA US LLC is a designer, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of
motor vehicles, parts, and other products for sale in California
and the United States, with principal place of business located at
1000 Chrysler Drive, Auburn Hills, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
         Steven R. Weinmann, Esq.
         Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
         Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
         Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
         CAPSTONE LAW APC
         1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 556-4811
         Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
         E-mail: Steven.Weinmann@capstonelawyers.com
                 Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                 Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                 Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com

FCA US: Martinez Suit Moved From C.D. California to E.D. Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MELINDA MARTINEZ,
Individually, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
FCA US, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00463 (Filed May 5, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan (Flint) on May 8, 2020.

The Eastern District of Michigan Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-11164-SDD-DRG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis.

The lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and
classes of current and former owners of model year 2018-2020 Jeep
Wrangler and 2020 Jeep Gladiator vehicles.

The Jeep Vehicles allegedly contain a defectively designed and/or
manufactured solid front axle and damping system that causes the
steering wheel to shake violently after encountering common and
expected road variations while operating at highway speeds. This
phenomenon is referred to as the Jeep "Death Wobble," a term
commonly used among Jeep owners to identify this condition, which
is known to FCA, says the complaint.

FCA designed, manufactured, marketed and warranted the Jeep
Vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher D. Moon, Esq.
          Kevin O. Moon, Esq.
          MOON LAW APC
          600 West Broadway, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 915-9432
          Facsimile: (650) 542-8432
          E-mail: chris@moonlawapc.com
                  kevin@moonlawapc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kathy A. Wisniewski, Esq.
          Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq.
          Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          One US Bank Plaza, 26th Floor
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552-6000
          Facsimile: (314) 552-7000
          E-mail: kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com
                  sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com
                  tazar@thompsoncoburn.com

               - and -

          Patrick G. Seyferth, Esq.
          BUSH, SEYFERTH & PAIGE
          100 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 400
          Troy, MI 48084-3107
          Telephone: (248) 822-7800
          Facsimile: (248) 822-7852
          E-mail: seyferth@bsplaw.com


FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: District of Mass. Dismisses ERISA Fee Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim in IN RE FIDELITY ERISA FEE LITIGATION, Civil No.
19-10335-LTS (D. Mass.).

The Plaintiffs in the putative class action allege various
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA").  They are suing the Defendants for alleged breach of
fiduciary duty on several theories of liability and seek, among
other things, to recover the "infrastructure fees" the Defendants
received from third-party fund managers in what the Plaintiffs
claim to be a contravention of the Defendants' duties under ERISA.

The Plaintiffs are individual participants in 401(k) retirement
plans offered by their employers.  The Plans are employee pension
benefit plans with the meaning of ERISA Section 3(2)(A), 29 U.S.C.
§ 1002(2)(A).  The Defendants provide the Plans with access to
FundsNetwork, an investment platform of thousands of mutual funds
and other investment vehicles

The Plans engage Fidelity for plan administration services, which
include, among other things, recordkeeping, allocation of
participant contributions, distribution of account proceeds to
departing participants, IRS tax withholding and reporting, and
maintenance of the menu of investment options available to the
Plans.  The Defendants manage and administer the retirement plan
assets of the Plans pursuant to the terms of Basic Plan Documents
and Adoption Agreements, as well as Service Agreements and Trust
Agreements they have with the Plans.  The Defendants enter into
these standard form agreements with virtually all the Plans.

Pursuant to the Contracts, the Plans' trustees or participants may
choose the mutual funds in which their contributions and any
matching contributions are invested, and Fidelity allocates those
contributions to particular accounts that correspond to the chosen
mutual funds and the interests of the Plans and their participants
in these mutual funds.  In January 2017, Fidelity began charging
mutual funds "infrastructure fees."  Fidelity has tripled the
amount of the infrastructure fees charged to mutual funds since
Jan. 1, 2017, by doubling them effective Jan. 1, 2018, and then
increasing them by another 50% effective Jan. 1, 2019.

Pursuant to the terms of the Contracts, the assets of the Plans are
held in omnibus accounts owned and controlled in trust by Fidelity.
The Omnibus Accounts constitute assets of the Plans.  Through
these Omnibus Accounts, Fidelity processes all trades and maintains
all the investment positions of the Plans in their respective
mutual funds.  The Defendants use the Omnibus Accounts as leverage
in negotiating their fees with mutual fund managers who want their
mutual funds to be made available to potential investors on the
Defendants' FundsNetwork.

The Plaintiffs contend in the alternative that to the extent that
any of the Defendants is not deemed a fiduciary or co-fiduciary
under ERISA, and since each of the Defendants operated under common
control with knowledge of all the Defendants imputed to the other
Defendants, any of the Defendants that is not deemed liable as a
fiduciary or co-fiduciary is liable to the Class under ERISA for
all recoverable losses and relief as a party-in-interest or other
non-fiduciary that knowingly participated in prohibited
transactions and breaches of fiduciary duty in violation of ERISA,
as well as in knowing breaches of trust.  The Plaintiffs contend
that Fidelity is a fiduciary with respect to its compensation both
because it has the contractual authority to determine its own
compensation and because it acted outside of its contractual
authority when doing so.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  First, the Court must distinguish the
complaint's factual allegations (which must be accepted as true)
from its conclusory legal allegations (which need not be credited).
Second, it must determine whether the factual allegations are
sufficient to support the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable.

Counts I to IV of the Plaintiffs' Complaint, which claim various
breaches of fiduciary duty, require the Plaintiffs to plausibly
allege that Defendants, who are not named fiduciaries, nevertheless
qualify as fiduciaries with respect to a plan.  Judge Sorokin finds
that the Plaintiffs have failed plausibly to allege that the
Defendants unilaterally control the terms of the compensation they
receive from the Plans.  Without such control, the Defendants are
not fiduciaries with respect to the compensation they receive from
the Plans.  As another session of the Court recently reasoned, if
service providers are not ERISA fiduciaries when negotiating their
compensation with ERISA plans, it is difficult to see how a service
provider could be an ERISA fiduciary when it negotiates a fixed
rate of compensation from an entity other than the Plan, as the
Plaintiffs allege.  Judge Sorokin rejects the Plaintiffs' first
theory of the Defendants' fiduciary status.

Judge Sorokin  also rejects the Plaintiffs' second theory of the
Defendants' fiduciary status.  The Plaintiffs' second theory is
that the Defendants are fiduciaries with respect to their use of
the Omnibus Accounts.  The theory also fails because the Plaintiffs
do not allege that, as directed trustees of the Omnibus Accounts,
the Defendants fail to follow the instructions they receive from
Plan Sponsors and participants as to which mutual funds are
selected for investment, or how the investments should be
allocated.  Nor do they allege that the Defendants improperly
redirect the investments of Plan participants, like the Plaintiffs,
through the Omnibus Accounts from mutual funds managed by companies
that do not pay infrastructure fees to mutual funds managed by
companies that do.

The Plaintiffs' third theory is that the Defendants are Plan
fiduciaries because they control the menu of investment options
available to the Plans.  The theory also fails.  The Contracts make
clear that it is the Plan Sponsors -- not the Defendants -- who
select which investment options are made available to the Plans'
participants from the FundsNetwork.  Judge Sorokin therefore
rejects the Plaintiffs' third theory of the Defendants' fiduciary
status.

Count V alleges in the alternative that in the event any of the
Defendants is not deemed a fiduciary or co-fiduciary under ERISA,
such the Defendant is nevertheless liable as a party-in-interest or
other non-fiduciary that knowingly participated in prohibited
transactions and breaches of fiduciary duty of any of the
Defendants who are deemed to be fiduciaries.  Because the Count
requires that at least one of the Defendants be deemed a fiduciary,
and because the Court has held that the Plaintiffs have not
plausibly alleged the Defendants' fiduciary status as to any of the
types of conduct as to which they complain, Count V fails for the
same reason Counts I to IV fail.

For the reasons stated, Judge Sorokin allowed the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://is.gd/xfcI7a from Leagle.com.

Tyler Wayne Sills, <u>on behalf of the t-Mobile USA, Inc. 401
(K) Retirement Savings Plan and Trust and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Employee Benefit Plans</u>, Regina Crystal
Robinson, on behalf of the T-Mobile USA, Inc. 401 (K) Retirement
Savings Plan and Trust and on behalf of al others similarly
situated Employee Benefit Plans & Cateenia D. Johnson, <u>on
behalf of the T-Mobile USA, Inc. 401 (K) Retirement Savings Plan
and Trust and on behalf of all others similarly situated Employee
Benefit Plans</u>, Consolidated Plaintiffs, represented by
Gregory McGillivary -- gkm@mselaborlaw.com -- McGillivary Steele
Elkin LLP, pro hac vice, John Welling Stewart, McGillivary Steele
Elkin LLP, pro hac vice, Megan K. Mechak -- mkm@mselaborlaw.com --
McGillivary Steele Elkin LLP, pro hac vice, Michael R. Keefe --
mrk@mselaborlaw.com -- Woodley & McGillivary LLP & Sarah M. Block,
McGillivary Steele Elkin LLP, pro hac vice.

Andre W. Wong, On Behalf of T-Mobile USA, Inc. 401(k) Retirement
Savings Plan and Trust and On Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated Employee Benefit Plans, Plaintiff, represented by Chiharu
G. Sekino , Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, pro hac vice,
David Pastor , Pastor Law Office, LLP, Jaclyn M. Reinhart ,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, pro hac vice, James E.
Miller , Sheperd Finkleman Miller & Shah, LLP., pro hac vice, Kolin
C. Tang , Sheperd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah LLP, pro hac vice,
Laurie Rubinow , Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, pro hac
vice, Nathan C. Zipperian , Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah,
LLP, pro hac vice & Ronald S. Kravitz , Shepherd Finkelman Miller &
Shah, LLP, pro hac vice.

Janice Andersen, Jason Bailis, Natalie Donaldson, Cynthia Eddy,
Myrl Jeffcoat, Thomas Goodrich, Kayla Jones, Karen Pettus, Gina
Summers & Heather Woodhouse, Plaintiffs, represented by David
Pastor , Pastor Law Office, LLP.

FMR LLC, Fidelity Management & Research Company, Fidelity
Management Trust Company, Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, National
Financial Services LLC & Fidelity Investments Institutional
Operations Company, Inc., Defendants, represented by Bradley N.
Garcia -- bgarcia@omm.com -- OMelveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice,
Brian D. Boyle, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory F.
Jacob -- gjacob@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice,
Jonathan Hacker, OMelveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice, Raghav Ahuja,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice, John J. Falvey, Jr. --
jfalvey@goodwinlaw.com --  Goodwin Procter LLP & John L. Potapchuk
, Goodwin Procter LLP.


FLIK INT'L: $55K Settlement in Clarke Labor Suit Gets Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES CLARKE, for himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff,: v. FLIK INTERNATIONAL CORP. and COMPASS GROUP
USA, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-1915 (SRC) (D. N.J.),
Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted the parties' joint motion for
approval of the settlement.

The action arises out of alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law
("NJWHL").  On March 23, 2017, Clarke initiated the lawsuit on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated food service
associates employed by Flik and Compass.  In relevant part, the
Defendants operate on-site food services for corporate offices and
various other locations, known as "cost centers."  Plaintiff Clarke
was employed in a food service capacity by the Defendants from 2013
to 2016.  For most of that time, Clarke worked at the Defendants'
Bayer Whippany cost center.

The Complaint filed by Clarke alleged that the Defendants were
aware that he and other food service employees at cost centers
throughout the United States were working during times that their
work was not being recorded, that is, were working "off the clock."
The crux of the action is that the Defendants have allegedly
failed to pay Clarke and other food service employees for
off-the-clock work, in violation of the FLSA, which mandates that
employers pay employees for all hours worked, including a
"time-and-one-half" overtime premium for all hours worked over 40
hours in one workweek.

Thereafter, Clarke filed a motion seeking conditional certification
of a nationwide class under FLSA Section 216(b).  For reasons set
forth at length in the Court's Aug. 16, 2018 Opinion, the Court
found that Clarke had failed to demonstrate that he and other
Flik/Compass food service workers in the hundreds of cost centers
across the country were similarly situated.  Instead, the Court
granted conditional certification to a collective consisting only
of food service workers employed at tje Defendants' Bayer Whippany
cost center.  The counsel for the Plaintiffs disseminated the
Court-approved notice of the collective action, and a total of six
individuals opted to join the case as the Plaintiffs.

For over two years, the parties engaged in contentious litigation
over the following factual dispute: The Plaintiffs allege that they
have worked as much as one hour before and one hour after their
scheduled shifts, setting up their stations and preparing for the
day and/or cleaning the kitchen and stocking the café.  They also
allege that they performed work during their 30-minute unpaid meal
break.  The Defendants deny these allegations, asserting that all
time worked by the Plaintiffs has been properly tracked and
recorded and that the Plaintiffs were not deprived of any wages.

Turning, then, to the instant motion for approval of the
settlement, the Court has reviewed the Settlement Agreement
submitted by the parties.  It negotiates a gross settlement amount
of $55,000 to resolve any and all wage and hour claims that were
asserted, or could have been asserted, against the Defendants by
named Plaintiff Clarke and the six opt-in Plaintiffs.  The total
settlement amount is comprised of the following: $32,435 to the
Plaintiffs as damages and lost wages; $19,000 as attorneys' fees to
the Plaintiffs' counsel; and $3,565 as reimbursement costs incurred
by the Plaintiffs' counsel.

Judge Chesler finds that the settlement reached by the parties to
the action satisfies the standard for approval.  In the case, it is
clear that the parties have been engaged in a bona fide factual
dispute about whether, in the course of their employment by the
Defendants, the Plaintiffs performed work which they could not
record and have thus been unlawfully deprived of wages by the
Defendants.

The Court also finds that both the parties recognize that
continuing with litigation carries risks for either side in proving
or defending against the claims.  There is no question that the
settlement was reached after years of hotly contested litigation,
including motion practice and substantial discovery.  The
settlement amount before the Court reflects the uncertainty of
future litigation and reasonably provides the Plaintiffs with
approximately 50% of the maximum compensatory damages owed on their
claims.

The attorneys' fee component of the settlement is also fair and
reasonable.  The Plaintiffs' counsel has demonstrated that they
have performed work resulting in a lodestar of $188,015, meaning
that the attorneys' fee negotiated in this settlement represents
approximately 10% of the lodestar.  The crosscheck reinforces the
reasonableness of the award.  Additionally, the Judge finds that
the requested reimbursement of costs in the amount of $3,565,
incurred over the course of over two years of litigation, is also
fair and reasonable.

Finally, turning to the question of whether the settlement
frustrates the implementation of the FLSA, the Judge finds that it
does not.  The Settlement Agreement before the Court does not
include a confidentiality provision, and the release which the
Plaintiffs have agreed to give in exchange for the payment by the
Defendants is properly tailored to matters related to the
Plaintiffs' wages or hours during his/her employment with
Defendants or any agreement concerning wages or hours during such
employment or the termination of such employment.

Therefore, for the reasons discussed, Judge Chesler granted the
parties' joint motion for approval of the settlement in the FLSA
collective action brought pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/864wnL from Leagle.com.

JAMES CLARKE, for himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by DAVID J. COHEN --
dcohen@stephanzouras.com

FLIK INTERNATIONAL CORP. & COMPASS GROUP USA, INC, Defendants,
represented by BRIAN JEFFREY GERSHENGORN --
bgershengorn@fisherphillips.com -- FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP.


FLIXBUS INC: Serrano Sues in C.D. California Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FlixBus Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Francisco Serrano, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. FlixBus Inc., Screamline Investment
Corporation d/b/a TourCoach Charter & Tours, USA Coach Services,
Inc., Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-04355 (C.D.
Cal., May 14, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Flixbus is a German brand that offers intercity bus service in
Europe and the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen J. Newman, Esq.
          STROOCK AND STROOCK AND LAVAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086
          Phone: (310) 556-5982
          Fax: (310) 556-5959
          Email: snewman@stroock.com


FOUNDERS GROUP: Cheng Stockholders Class Suit Removed to D.S.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The stockholders class action lawsuit captioned as Xunhui Cheng and
Kelin Cai, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Dan Liu; Founders Group International, LLC; Founders
National Golf, LLC; Founders Aberdeen, LLC; Founders Development,
LLC; Founders BRGC, LLC; Founders GCC, LLC; Founders Golf
Management, LLC; Founders IWGC, LLC; Founders RHGC, LLC; Founders
Tradition, LLC; Founders Wild Wing, LLC; Atlantic Development
Company, LLC; Atlantic Coast Funding, LLC; Wild Wing Land and
Development, LLC; Offshore Captain, LLC; D & C International
Holdings, LLC; Founders Bluewater, LLC; and Founders Events, LLC,
Case No. 2020CP2601911 (Filed March 12, 2020), was removed from the
South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, Horry County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina (Florence) on May
1, 2020.

The District of South Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-01726-RBH to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge R. Bryan Harwell.

Founders Group owns and operates 22 golf courses (423 holes) in and
around Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Cory E. Manning, Esq.
          B. Rush Smith III, Esq.
          Susan P. MacDonald, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
          1320 Main Street, 17th Floor
          Post Office Box 11070 (29211-1070)
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 799-2000
          E-mail: rush.smith@nelsonmullins.com
                  cory.manning@nelsonmullins.com
                  susan.macdonald@nelsonmullins.com


FOX HILLS: Rosales Seeks Unpaid Wages and OT Pay for Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, GILBERTO ROSALES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated v. FOX HILLS AUTO, INC.; FOX HILLS AUTO
INC. DBA AIRPORT MARINA FORD; NJB INVESTMENTS, INC.; NJB
INVESTMENTS, INC. DBA NOARUS AUTO GROUP; and DOES 1 to 100,
Defendants, Case No. 20STCV16964 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
May 4, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004, Labor Code Section 2698, including
failure to include all remuneration when calculating the applicable
overtime rate of the Plaintiff's pay; failure to authorize or
permit legally compliant meal periods and rest periods; failure to
provide accurate wage statements; failure to timely provide all
earned wages; and failure to timely pay former employees all earned
and unpaid wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly,
non-exempt employee until in or around 23 November 20, 2019.

Fox Hills Auto Inc., doing business as Airport Marina Ford,
operates as an automobile dealer with principal place of business
located at 5880 Centinela Ave., Los Angeles, California.

NJB Investments, Inc., doing business as Noarus Auto Group,
operates as an automobile dealer with principal place of business
located at 5880 Centinela Ave., Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
         Joseph Lavi, Esq.
         Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
         Anwar D. Burton, Esq.
         LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN LLP
         8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
         Beverly Hills, CA 90211
         Telephone: (310) 432-0000
         Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
         E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com
                 vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                 aburton@lelawfirm.com

GEICO GENERAL: Calif. Court Consolidates Munoz & Subbaiah Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the Stipulation to File
Consolidated Complaint in the cases MARTISHA ANN MUNOZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. POONAM
SUBBAIAH, Plaintiff, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case Nos. 19-cv-03768-HSG, 19-cv-08164-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

The cases captioned Martisha Ann Munoz, et al. v. GEICO General
Insurance Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-03768-HSG; and Poonam Subbaiah
v. GEICO General Insurance Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-08164-HSG are
consolidated into Martisha Ann Munoz, et al. v. GEICO General
Insurance Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-03768-HSG.  The earlier-filed
civil action, Case No. 4:19-cv-03768-HSG, will serve as the lead
case.

The clerk is directed to administratively close the later-filed
civil action, Case No. 4:19-cv-08164-HSG.  All future filings
should be made in the lead case only and should be captioned "In Re
GEICO General Insurance Company."  The Plaintiffs are directed to
e-file Dkt. No. 71-1, Exhibit A (the Consolidated Amended
Complaint) directly on the docket.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/se1erZ from Leagle.com.

Martisha Ann Munoz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated & Cindy Ventrice-Pearson, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Annick Marie
Persinger -- apersinger@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Edmund
Alonso Normand -- ed@ednormand.com -- Normand PLLC, Jacob Lawrence
Phillips -- jacob.phillips@mormandpllc.com -- Normand PLLC, Andrew
John Shamis, Shamis and Gentile, P.A., pro hac vice & Scott Adam
Edelsberg -- scott@edelsberglaw.com -- Edelsberg Law, pro hac
vice.

Geico General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Alexander Phillip Fuchs, Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, pro hac
vice, Ian Scott Shelton -- IanShelton@eversheds-sutherland.com --
Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, Kymberly Kochis, Eversheds
Sutherland (US) LLP, pro hac vice & Joseph Robert Ashby --
joseph@sergenianashby.com -- Sergenian Ashby LLP.

Poonam Subbaiah, Intervenor, represented by Joshua Adam Fields,
Kirtland and Packard LLP & Behram Viraf Parekh, Kirtland & Packard
LLP.


GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismisses Quitno Suit Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMBER QUITNO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-07598 (N.D. Ill.), Judge John Robert Blakey of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western
Division, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Plaintiff Quitno brings a putative class action against the
Defendant, alleging she purchased a 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe that
suffered from a defective brake system, of which the Defendant was
aware and actively concealed. She now brings claims for: (1)
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act (ICFA); (2) breach of implied warranty; (3) breach of
implied warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Federal Warranty Act; and
(4) unjust enrichment.

On Sept. 21, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased a new 2015 Chevrolet
Tahoe from Alan Browne Chevrolet in Genoa, Illinois.  Concerned
about safety, before purchasing the vehicle, the Plaintiff
researched several options.  To that end, the Plaintiff
specifically researched the Chevrolet Tahoe and read information on
the Defendant's website touting the Chevrolet Tahoe's safety and
durability.

Indeed, the Defendant's website stated that GM had implemented
procedures to prevent known defects from being hidden from
consumers.  Additionally, she also spent around twenty minutes
speaking to the sales representative specifically about the
allegation made against GM concerning its concealment of a
"steering defect."  That employee reassured her that the Chevrolet
Tahoe was safe, and that the Defendant would disclose any
safety-related defect to consumers.  The Plaintiff subsequently
purchased her new 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe, which came with a "New
Vehicle Limited Warranty," providing coverage for three years or
36,000 miles.

Despite purchasing what the Plaintiff felt constituted a safe car,
in the summer of 2018, she began experiencing brake problems.  The
first incident occurred when she attempted to apply the brakes as
the wheel was turned while backing out of her driveway.  The brakes
felt hard and wouldn't slow the vehicle.  Because she could not
brake, she hit another car parked near her driveway.  She paid the
owner of the other car $50 and her car sustained some damage,
including a broken rear taillight, a bent bumper, and a bent side
fender.

A few months later, the Plaintiff again experienced brake failure.
As she began to reverse out of a parking space, her brakes stopped
working, and the Plaintiff only managed to stop the car by standing
on the brake with her full weight.  The Plaintiff then put the car
in park, turned off the engine, and restarted it.  At this point
her brakes functioned normally.  After waiting, she then put the
car in reverse and again began to back out.  Yet the brakes again
malfunctioned, forcing her to use her body weight to stop it.  She
later put the car in drive, testing the brakes as she moved
forward, and, after finding they worked, drove home and parked her
vehicle in her driveway.

The next day, the Plaintiff decided to take her car to the
dealership for service.  But when she backed out of her driveway,
she again experienced the alleged brake defect.  She subsequently
called the dealership, who informed her that her warranty period
expired four days ago.  A dealership employee did, however, pick up
the Plaintiff's vehicle for a diagnostic check.  Although that
check did not reveal any problems, the Plaintiff asked the
dealership to check the brake vacuum.  That separate test did
reveal a brake pressure problem: the dealership stated that brake
pressure should be -13, but the brake pressure on the Plaintiff's
car was -9 sitting and -3 on depression.  The dealership
subsequently ordered and installed a replacement, costing around
$400.

The Plaintiff claims the Defendant knew of the Brake Defect before
her purchase of her 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe and failed to disclose the
issue to her and other similarly situated consumers.  She believes
this to be true because of the Defendant's service bulletins as
well as customer complaints sent to dealerships, the Defendant, and
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA")
complaining of brake failure issues in the purported class
vehicles.

The Defendant moves to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).  It seeks to dismiss the Plaintiff's IFCA claim
arguing the Plaintiff fails to sufficiently plead a claim based
upon either deceptive conduct or an unfair practice.  The ICFA
prohibits both unfair practices and deceptive conduct, and the
Plaintiff alleges both.

Judge Blakey finds that while the alleged misrepresentation might
provide adequate detail as to the particulars of the fraud,
including the who (the sales agent), what (the safety of the
vehicle and procedure to disclose known safety defects), when (at
the time of her initial vehicle purchase on Sept. 21, 2015), and
where (at Alan Browne Chevrolet), the Plaintiff nevertheless fails
to allege any facts showing an agency relationship between Alan
Browne Chevrolet and the Defendant.  The Court finds this failure
dispositive because the Defendant cannot be held liable for an Alan
Brown Chevrolet employee's statement unless it made that employee
its agent.

Because it holds that the Plaintiff fails to state either a
deceptive conduct or an unfair practice cause of action under the
ICFA, the Court grants without prejudice the Defendant's motion to
dismiss these claims.  Because the Plaintiff predicates her unfair
practice allegation entirely upon the Defendant's allegedly
deceptive statements, merely citing the "unfair practices" prong of
the ICFA cannot transform her claim.

The Defendant argues that the Court should dismiss Count II for
lack of privity.  The Court holds that the Plaintiff fails to plead
any facts alleging direct dealings with the Defendant's agents.
The Plaintiff also fails to plead any facts suggesting the
Defendant manufactured her car specifically to her specifications
or that she maintained a unique relationship with the Defendant.
Given the Plaintiff's failure to plead factual allegations
establishing that the Defendant directly dealt with her, Count II
fails for lack of privity, and the Court grants the Defendant's
motion to dismiss without prejudice.

The Defendant also seeks to dismiss the Plaintiff's MMWA implied
warranty claim.  Even though the Plaintiff's MMWA claim depends
upon the viability of her state law implied warranty claim, which
fails for a lack of privity, she claims her MMWA claim survives
based upon a privity exception for implied warranty claims alleged
pursuant to the MMWA.  However, the Court finds that the
Plaintiff's MMWA implied warranty claim fails because she does not
plead privity and no exceptions apply.  Accordingly, the Court
grants without prejudice the Defendant's motion to dismiss the MMWA
claim.

Finally, the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment theory is that the
Defendant unjustly retained a benefit by deceptively selling her
the 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe.  Thus, her unjust enrichment claim
remains based solely upon the same allegedly deceptive conduct as
her ICFA claim.  In this scenario, where her unjust enrichment
claim is predicated on the same conduct as another claim, then the
unjust enrichment claim will be tied to the related claim -- and,
of course, unjust enrichment will stand or fall with the related
claim.  Because the Court dismissed the Plaintiff's ICFA claim, her
unjust enrichment claim also fails.  For this reason, the Court
grants without prejudice the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim.

For the reasons stated, Judge Blakey grants the Defendant's motion
to dismiss without prejudice.  The Plaintiff is given leave to file
an amended complaint to the degree she can do so consistent with
her obligations under Rule 11.  The case remains set for a status
conference before Magistrate Judge Lisa A. Jensen.  Any proposed
revisions to the case management order may be addressed at that
time.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 18, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/c2Cb3K from
Leagle.com.

Amber Quitno, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Flannery , Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, Adam W. Pittman -- apittman@corywatson.com --
Cory Watson, P.C., pro hac vice, Andrew C. Ficzko, Stephan Zouras,
Llp, Frank Jerome Tapley -- jtapley@corywatson.com -- Cory, Watson,
P.C., pro hac vice, Henry Clay Barnett, III --
clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com -- Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin,
Portis & Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Hirlye Ray Lutz --
rlutz@corywatson.com -- Cory Watson, P.C., pro hac vice, James
Mitchell Williams, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles,
P.C., pro hac vice, James C. Wyly -- jwyly@wylyrommel.com --
Wyly-Rommel, PLLC, pro hac vice, James B. Zouras, Stephan Zouras,
LLP, Jeffrey Koncius, Kiesel Law LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren S.
Miller, Cory Watson, P.C., pro hac vice, Melanie Meneses Palmer,
Kiesel Law LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas L. Brancolini, Kiesel Law
LLP, pro hac vice, Sean F. Rommel -- srommel@wylyrommel.com --
Wyly-Rommel, PLLC, pro hac vice & Ryan F. Stephan, Stephan, Zouras,
LLP.

General Motors, LLC., Defendant, represented by Christina C. Brunty
-- cbrunty@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett Pllc, Jared Alexander
Levine -- JaLevine@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP, pro hac
vice & Kathleen Taylor Sooy -- ksooy@crowell.com -- Crowell &
Moring LLP.


GENERAL MOTORS: Dawson Suit Moved to Eastern District of Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRUCE DAWSON et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS
LLC, Defendant, Civ. No. 19-8680 (D. N.J.), Judge Anne E. Thompson
of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted
the Defendant's unopposed Motion to Transfer the case to the
Eastern District of Michigan.

The case is a class action in which the Plaintiffs allege that
Bosch-supplied CP4 fuel injection pumps installed in the
Defendant-manufactured vehicles are defective and cause increased
risks of accident, injury, or death to drivers and passengers.  The
putative class is comprised of purchasers or lessees of certain
Defendant-manufactured vehicles with defective CP4 fuel injection
pumps in New Jersey.

On March 15, 2019, Plaintiffs Dawson and John Tamburini filed the
Complaint.  On May 20, 2019, the Defendant filed a Motion to
Dismiss, which the Court granted.  On Aug. 26, 2019, the Plaintiffs
filed an Amended Complaint.

On Aug. 6, 2019, eight Michigan Plaintiffs filed a separate
putative class action in the Eastern District of Michigan --
Chapman v. Gen. Motors LLC.  The Michigan Plaintiffs allege claims
on behalf of statewide classes of purchasers of
Defendant-manufactured vehicles under the laws of several states,
including New Jersey.

On Oct. 15, 2019, the Court stayed the action pending a motion to
transfer this case and other class actions to the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML").  The motion to transfer
requested that the JPML hear 10 putative class actions against the
Defendant and other automakers in either the Northern District of
California or the Eastern District of Michigan.  On Dec. 18, 2019,
the JPML denied the motion to transfer, citing automaker- and
plaintiff-specific differences between the cases that made
multidistrict litigation inappropriate.

On Dec. 24, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion to Transfer the case to
the Eastern District of Michigan.  The Plaintiffs have expressly
advised the Court that they do not oppose the Motion.

Judge Thompson opines that the transfer to the Eastern District of
Michigan would likely be more convenient for potential witnesses.
The transfer would likely be less beneficial to the Plaintiffs as
New Jersey residents, but they have not asserted that they would be
subject to financial or geographic barriers if the case is
transferred.

Moreover, although the claims in the action arose in New Jersey in
one sense -- the putative class is made up of New Jersey residents
who purchased or leased vehicles in New Jersey -- decisions related
to the alleged defects were more likely made in the Eastern
District of Michigan than in the District of New Jersey.  It
supports transfer of the case.

Ultimately, the Judge is not considering the appropriateness of
consolidation of the case and the Chapman case.  Even if the case
is not consolidated with Chapman, however, the litigation will
proceed more efficiently in the Eastern District of Michigan simply
because pertinent witnesses and records will be more readily
available.

For these reasons, Judge Thompson granted the Defendant's Motion to
Transfer.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 21, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/r95jmc from Leagle.com.

BRUCE DAWSON & JOHN TAMBURINI, individuallly, Plaintiffs,
represented by AMEY JIYOUNG PARK -- apark@bm.net -- Berger
Montague, ERIC LECHTZIN -- elechtzin@bm.net -- BERGER MONTAGUE PC
&
RUSSELL D. PAUL -- rpaul@bm.net -- BERGER MONTAGUE PC.

GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, represented by HONOR R. COSTELLO --
hcostello@crowell.com -- CROWELL & MORING LLP.


GENERAL MOTORS: Smith Sues in E.D. Texas Over Defective Shifters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandy Smith, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 9:20-cv-00101 (E.D. Tex.,
May 14, 2020), is brought on her own behalf and on behalf of a
proposed class of past and present Texas owners and lessees of
defective 2017-2018 GMC Acadia vehicles designed, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, sold, warranted, and serviced by the
Defendant to seek damages and restitution, as well as notification
to class members about the defect with the Class Vehicles'
shifters.

The Class Vehicles contain a defect whereby the vehicles fail to
detect that the driver placed the car in "Park" and prevents the
vehicle driver from shutting off and locking the vehicle, according
to the complaint. Instead, the Class Vehicles display a "Shift to
Park" message on the instrument cluster even though the gear
shifter is already in "Park" (hereinafter the "Shifter Defect").

As a result of this Shifter Defect, the Plaintiff says she and
members of the Class are unable to shut off their vehicles and, to
avoid battery discharge, are forced to resort to all sort of
gimmicks to get their vehicles to detect that the shift lever is in
fact in "Park." The Plaintiff notes that she has given GM a
reasonable opportunity to cure the Shifter Defect, but GM has been
unable to do so within a reasonable period of time. She contends
that GM's conduct is in breach of contract, in breach of express
and implied warranties, and in breach of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act.

GM has and will continue to benefit from its unlawful conduct--by
selling and leasing more vehicles, at a higher price, and avoiding
warranty obligations--while consumers are harmed at the point of
sale as their vehicles suffer from the Shifter Defect, which GM
cannot fix, according to the complaint. Had the Plaintiff and other
proposed class members known about the defect at the time of
purchase or lease, they would not have bought or leased the Class
Vehicles, or would have paid substantially less for them.

The Plaintiff is an adult individual residing in Huntington,
Texas.

General Motors LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business located in Detroit, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jody B. Burton, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW LLC
          43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Phone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
          Email: jburton@lemberglaw.com


GEORGIA POWER: Class Status Order Vacated
-----------------------------------------
Georgia Power Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the Georgia Court of
Appeals has vacated the Superior Court of Fulton County's February
2019 order granting conditional class certification.

In 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Georgia
Power in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia alleging that
Georgia Power's collection in rates of amounts for municipal
franchise fees (which fees are paid to municipalities) exceeded the
amounts allowed in orders of the Georgia PSC and alleging certain
state tort law claims.

In 2016, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
previous dismissal of the case and remanded the case to the trial
court. Georgia Power filed a petition for writ of certiorari with
the Georgia Supreme Court, which was granted in 2017.

In 2018, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the
Georgia Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court
for further proceedings.

Following a motion by Georgia Power, in February 2019, the Superior
Court of Fulton County ordered the parties to submit petitions to
the Georgia PSC for a declaratory ruling to address certain terms
the court previously held were ambiguous as used in the Georgia
PSC's orders. The order entered by the Superior Court of Fulton
County also conditionally certified the proposed class.

In March 2019, Georgia Power and the plaintiffs filed petitions
with the Georgia PSC seeking confirmation of the proper application
of the municipal franchise fee schedule pursuant to the Georgia
PSC's orders.

In October 2019, the Georgia PSC issued an order that found and
concluded that Georgia Power has appropriately implemented the
municipal franchise fee schedule. On March 11, 2020, the Georgia
Court of Appeals vacated the Superior Court of Fulton County's
February 2019 order granting conditional class certification.

The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Superior Court of
Fulton County for the entry of a detailed order addressing each
class certification factor.

Georgia Power said, "The amount of any possible losses cannot be
calculated at this time because, among other factors, it is unknown
whether a class will be certified, the ultimate composition of any
class, and whether any losses would be subject to recovery from any
municipalities."

Georgia Power Company engages in generation, transmission,
distribution, purchases, and sells electric service in Georgia. It
generates electricity from coal, nuclear, and natural gas sources,
as well as renewable sources, such as solar, hydroelectric, and
wind. The company was incorporated in 1930 and is based in Atlanta,
Georgia. Georgia Power Company is a subsidiary of The Southern
Company.


GOSSAMER BIO: Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Motion Set for June 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on April 26 disclosed that class
action has been commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Gossamer Bio, Inc. If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Gossamer Bio, Inc. (GOSS)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/gossamer-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=6185&wire=1

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 2, 2020

Class Period: common stock between February 8, 2019 and December
13, 2019 and/or who acquired Gossamer shares pursuant or traceable
to Gossamer's documents issued in connection with its February 8,
2019 initial public offering.

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) the
reasons for Gossamer's GB001 trial failures; (2) the purported
clinical validation of Novartis' oral DP2 antagonist; and (3) that,
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel.: 212-425-1140
Fax.:866-699-3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


GOSSAMER BIO: Schall Law Files Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Gossamer
Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:GOSS) for violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering in February 2019
(the "IPO" ) or between February 8, 2019 and December 13, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm
before June 2, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Gossamer's IPO materials and public
statements misled the market about its GB001 drug and its related
clinical trials and studies. Novartis announced on December 16,
2019, that it was terminating development of its DP2 antagonist for
asthma based on two failed phase 3 clinical trials. Based on these
facts, the Company's public comments and IPO documents were false
and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about
Gossamer, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

Contact:

         The Schall Law Firm
         Brian Schall, Esq.
         http://www.schallfirm.com/
         Office: 310-301-3335
         Cell: 424-303-1964
         E-mail: info@schallfirm.com [GN]


GRUPO TELEVISA: Still Defends Class Suit Over Alleged FIFA Bribery
------------------------------------------------------------------
Grupo Televisa, S.A.B. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a purported class action suit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York related to the
company's alleged failure to to disclose alleged involvement in
bribery activities relating to certain executives of Federation
Internationale de Football Association ("FIFA").

On March 5, 2018, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York alleging securities law violations in connection with
allegedly misleading statements and/or omissions in Televisa's
public disclosures.

The lawsuit alleges that Televisa and two of its executives failed
to disclose alleged involvement in bribery activities relating to
certain executives of Federation Internationale de Football
Association ("FIFA"), and wrongfully failed to disclose weaknesses
in Televisa's internal control over its financial reporting as of
December 31, 2016.

On May 17, 2018, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff for the
putative stockholder class. On August 6, 2018, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint.

Televisa thereupon filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On March 25, 2019, the Court issued a decision denying Televisa's
motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiff's allegations, if true,
were sufficient to support a claim.

Televisa believes that the lawsuit, and the material allegations
and claims therein, are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend against the lawsuit.

With regard to plaintiff's allegations regarding FIFA, outside
counsel long previously investigated the circumstances surrounding
Televisa's acquisition of the Latin American media rights for the
Canada, Mexico and USA 2026 FIFA World Cup and 2030 FIFA World Cup
and uncovered no credible evidence that would form the basis for
liability for Televisa or for any executive, employee, agent or
subsidiary thereof.

In particular, Televisa itself made no payment to any FIFA person
and in no way knew of, or condoned, any payment by any third party
to any FIFA person. Televisa also notes that no proceedings have
been initiated against it by any governmental agency.

Grupo Televisa, S.A.B. operates as a media company in the
Spanish-speaking world. The company operates through four segments:
Content, Sky, Cable, and Other Businesses. Grupo Televisa, S.A.B.
was founded in 1990 and is based in Mexico City, Mexico.


H&M: Court Tosses Class Decertification Bid in Lao Case
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division issued an Order denying Defendant's
Motion to Decertify Class in the case captioned SER LAO, Plaintiff,
v. H&M HENNES & MAURITZ, L.P., Defendant, Case No.
5:16-cv-00333-EJD, (N.D. Cal.).

H&M's alleged policy of requiring all retail employees to undergo a
visual inspection by a manager or other designated person after
they clock out either at the end of a shift or at closing but
before they leave the H&M store where they work (Class).

Plaintiff contends that H&M uses two types of security checks: (1)
bag inspections, where only retail employees that have a bag must
allow a manager to check the bag before leaving and (2) visual
inspections, where every retail employee regardless of whether they
have a bag must inform a manager of when they leave, allowing the
manager to observe their person. Plaintiff argues that, under
California law, the time taken for the visual inspections and for
any waiting prior to the inspections is compensable.

The court certified the class, all current and former non-exempt
retail store employees who were employed by H&M in the State of
California at any time from December 11, 2011, through the present
with respect to Plaintiff's claims predicated on security checks,
and any associated wait times, performed at the end of an
employee's shifts or at closing.

H&M argues that the Class should be decertified because it cannot
met the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2), it fails the
predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(b)(3), it is not
ascertainable, and Plaintiff has not submitted a manageable trial
plan.

Commonality

H&M's first argument is that testimony from 25 class members
deposed after the Certification Order shows that the Class lacks
commonality.

Commonality requires that the class members claims depend upon a
common contention such that determination of its truth or falsity
will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each claim
in one stroke.

H&M contends that these depositions indicate (a) that it did not
have a uniform policy requiring security check of retail employees
who did not have bags (b) that any security checks of retail
employees without bags was the product of inconsistent or incorrect
applications of the Policy and (c) that the visual inspections,
when they did occur, were so brief as to be non-compensable under
California law.  

The testimony of these class members does not support H&M's
argument. Instead of indicating that retail employees who bring
bags are subject to security checks while retail employees without
bags are not, the depositions are evidence that all retail
employees are subject to visual inspections, regardless of whether
they brought a bag, and that retail employees with bags are subject
to an additional inspection.

They suggest that the visual inspection required, at minimum,
informing a manager that they were about to leave which provided
the manager with the opportunity to observe the employee. That
employees with bags had to undergo a more intensive bag inspection
in addition to a visual inspection does not harm the commonality of
the Class. Other deponents confirmed that retail employees must go
through this visual inspection process or face disciplinary action.


For Plaintiff's claims to succeed, he will have to prove that class
members were under the control of H&M during the visual
inspections. Showing that an employee is subject to the control of
an employer has two elements. The first is that the employer
restrains the employee's action during the activity in question.
The second is that the employee has no plausible way to avoid the
activity, put differently, the activity must be mandatory and not
optional at the discretion of the worker.

Whether the visual inspections apart from the bag inspections meet
these two elements are common questions of law and fact and can be
answered with common proof.

H&M next argues that the Policy's inconsistent application to
various class members and across different times precludes a
finding of commonality. This argument fares no better. Whether
retail employees were required to tell a manager that they were
leaving allowing the manager to see them to stand in front of a
security camera so they could be inspected remotely or to be
escorted to the exit has no material impact on the commonality
analysis.

These purported inconsistencies do not negate Plaintiff's
allegations that, before they are permitted to leave, all class
members must (1) inform a manager that they are leaving, and (2)
submit to a visual inspection of their person. Nor do the purported
inconsistencies suggest that that the visual inspections whatever
precise form they take are not mandatory.

Rather, they are minor and do not defeat commonality.  

H&M has not shown that the class member depositions taken after the
court issued the Certification Order warrant decertifying the
class.

Predominance

H&M also argues that the Class does not satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s
requirement that common questions predominate over individualized
questions.

The predominance inquiry tests whether a proposed class is
sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.
The requirement is more demanding than Rule 23(a) and its
commonality requirement, because a plaintiff must show not only
that common questions of law or fact exist but that they actually
predominate over questions only affecting individual class
members.

H&M argues that because the bag inspections took different lengths
of time depending on a number of factors such as whether the
employee was working a night or day shift, how busy the store was,
etc. that individual questions predominate. However, Plaintiff can
establish liability by showing that class members were subject to
H&M's control. So, any variance in the amount of time taken on bag
inspections is a question of damages, not liability. However,
damages determinations are individual in nearly all wage-and-hour
class actions and individualized damage calculations alone cannot
defeat certification.

Individualized questions as to the length of the bag checks do not
defeat predominance.

Ascertainability

H&M argues that certification should be denied because the Class is
not ascertainable: Determining whether employees were subjected to
uncompensated time would require testimony from each of the class
members regarding a host of independent and individualized factors.
Simply put, not all current and former non-exempt retail employees
were harmed by H&M's Security Check Policy. H&M raised already
raised this argument in its opposition to Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.   

In the decertification motion, H&M cites no facts discovered after
the Certification Order. Instead, H&M merely repeats an argument
that the court has already considered and rejected.   

This repeated argument is not grounds for decertification, ruled
District Judge EDWARD J. DAVILA in his order,   
a full-text copy of which is available at
https://tinyurl.com/wmjdpla from Leagle.com.

Accordingly, H&M's motion to decertify the Class is denied.

Ser Lao, as an individual and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis Sangwon Hyun -
dhyun@hyunlegal.com - Hyun Legal APC, Kristen Michelle Agnew
-kagnew@diversitylaw.com - Diversity Law Group, APC, Kwanporn
Tulyathan  - ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com - Diversity Law Group,
Larry W. Lee -lwlee@diversitylaw.com - Diversity Law Group, P.C.,
Max William Gavron -mgavron@diversitylaw.com - Diversity Law Group
& Nicholas Rosenthal -nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com - Diversity Law
Group.

H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., a New York limited partnership,
Defendant, represented by Alma Pinan
- apinan@manatt.com - Manatt, Phelps, Phillips, LLP, Eve L. Torres
, Manatt, Phelps & Andrew Lee Satenberg - asatenberg@manatt.com -
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP.

HIGH LEVEL DEVELOPMENT: Perry Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiera Perry, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
HIGH LEVEL DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING & SECURITY LLC and SHELDON
MIDDLETON, Case No. 1:20-cv-02180 (E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2020), is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum and unpaid
overtime wages, unpaid spread of hours premium and statutory
damages arising out of the Defendants' failure to provide required
wage and hour law notices.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff routinely worked
overtime, but was denied proper overtime compensation. Rather than
pay the required overtime rate of time and one-half the employee's
regular hourly rate, the Defendants paid the regular hourly rate
for all hours worked, including hours in excess of 40. The
Plaintiff regularly worked ten hours or more in a day and did not
receive additional compensation as required under NYLL's spread of
hours provisions.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a non-exempt
employee, security guard.

High Level Development Contracting & Security LLC is a New York
corporation that staffs security guards and residential and
commercial facilities throughout New York City and its surrounding
areas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810
          New York, NY
          Phone: (718) 669-0714
          Email: mgangat@gangatllc.com


HILCO REDEVELOPMENT: Faces Class Action Over Smokestack Implosion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC7 Chicago reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed on
behalf of Little Village residents after a smokestack demolition
sent a cloud of dust into the air on Chicago's Southwest Side.

Hilco Redevelopment Partners oversaw the weekend implosion. Hilco
apologized for causing "anxiety and fear" after it failed to follow
a plan it gave city officials that would've prevented the
situation. They expected the implosion experts to use dust
mitigation with water before, during and after the demolition.

The company said it is fully cooperating with the city while it
investigates and is implementing "a thorough corrective action
plan."

Roberto Perez, CEO of Hilco acknowledged concerns were even further
elevated given the implosion took place during the coronavirus
pandemic.

"We understand, apologize to and sympathize with the Little Village
community," said Perez in a statement. "The health, safety and
welfare of the local community is of paramount concern to Hilco
Redevelopment Partners as we work toward completing this project
and driving economic viability to the community." [GN]


HOMELAND INSURANCE: 5th Cir. Denies Leave to Appeal in Williams
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied
Petitioners' Motion for Leave to Appeal in the case captioned
GEORGE RAYMOND WILLIAMS, MEDICAL DOCTOR, ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY, A
PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL, L.L.C., Plaintiffs-Petitioners, v. HOMELAND
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Respondent. No. 19-90027,
(5th Cir.)

Petitioners originally filed a class action in a Louisiana state
court. Petitioners amended their complaint to include a new claim
against Respondent Homeland Insurance Company of New York.
Respondent timely removed the case to federal court.

Petitioners moved to remand.

The magistrate judge made two recommendations. First, it
recommended a finding of subject matter jurisdiction based on
diversity jurisdiction only as to the claims against the
Respondent. Second, the magistrate judge recommended remanding
certain state law claims based on a decision in Williams v.
Homeland Ins. Co. of N.Y., 657 F.3d 287, 289-90 (5th Cir. 2011).
The district court adopted both recommendations.

Petitioners have sought permission to appeal the district court's
order under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).   

In the ordinary case, an order remanding a case to state court from
which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise. But
CAFA created a limited exception.

Section 1453(c)(1) provides that notwithstanding Section 1447(d), a
court of appeals may accept an appeal from an order of a district
court granting or denying a motion to remand.

But Petitioners do not raise a CAFA-linked argument because the
district court based its finding of jurisdiction on ordinary
diversity jurisdiction, the Fifth Circuit notes. And Petitioners'
briefing underscores this fact by relying upon the general removal
statute and discussing the appropriate procedures for removal and
remand generally.  In fact, Petitioners barely address CAFA or even
the Fifth Circuit's prior opinion on CAFA in this case.  

Section 1453(c)(1) interlocutory appellate jurisdiction in this
case would be inappropriate, the Fifth Circuit holds.
  
The petitioner's opposed motion for leave to appeal under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1453 is thus denied, the Fifth Circuit rules.

A full-text copy of Fifth Circuit's Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/vw8q5qe from Leagle.com

John S. Bradford , One Lakeside Plaza, 127 West Broad Street4th
FloorLake Charles, LA 70601, for Plaintiff-Petitioner.
Patrick C. Morrow, Sr. - PatM@mmrblaw.com - for
Plaintiff-Petitioner.

Stephen B. Murray, Sr., of 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70130, for Plaintiff-Petitioner.

James Patrick Ryan - jar@capgroup.com - for Plaintiff -Petitioner.

Thomas Allen Filo of 723 Broad Street, Lake Charles, LA 70601, for
Plaintiff-Petitioner.

Raymond Peter Ward - raymond.ward@arlaw.com - for
Defendant-Respondent.

Catherine Emily Stetson - cate.stetson@hoganlovells.com - for
Defendant-Respondent.

E. Paige Sensenbrenner , Hancock Whitney Center, Suite 4500, 701
Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70139, for Defendant-Respondent.
Arthur Mahony Murray , 650 Poydras St Ste 2150, New Orleans, LA,
70130-7205, for Plaintiff-Petitioner.

Nicholas John Wehlen – nwehlen@stonepigman.com - for
Plaintiff-Petitioner.

Sara C. Valentine , 701 Poydras St, Ste 4500, New Orleans, LA
70139, for Defendant-Respondent.


HSBC BANK: Court Awards $600K Attorney’s Fees
-----------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued a Judgment granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned SABER
AHMED, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HSBC BANK USA, et al., Defendants,
Case No. ED-CV -15-2057 FMO (SPx), (C.D. Cal.).

District Judge FERNANDO M. OLGUIN ordered that Plaintiffs Saber
Ahmed and John Monteleone shall each be paid a service payment of
$5,000 in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and
the Order.

Class counsel shall be paid $600,000.00 in attorney's fees, and
$51,071.92 in costs in accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.

In his Judgment, a full-text copy of which is available at
https://tinyurl.com/tzdmoqa from Leagle.com, Judge Olguin held that
Claims Administrator, JND, shall be paid for its fees and expenses
in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

All class members who did not validly and timely request exclusion
from the settlement have released their claims, as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement, against any of the released parties.

Except as to any class members who have validly and timely
requested exclusion, this action is dismissed with prejudice, with
all parties to bear their own fees and costs except as set forth
herein and in the prior orders of the court, Judge Olguin rules.

Saber Ahmed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander H. Burke , Burke Law
Offices LLC, 155 N Michigan Ave Ste 9020 Chicago, IL, 60601-7713,
pro hac vice, Meghan Elisabeth George-  mgeorge@toddflaw.com, Law
Offices of Todd M Friedman  -PC, Seyed Abbas Kazerounian  -
ak@kazlg.com - Kazerouni Law Group APC, Thomas Edward Wheeler -
twheeler@toddflaw.com - Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC, Todd M.
Friedman - tfriedman@toddflaw.com - Law Office of Todd M Friedman
PC, Adrian Robert Bacon  - abacon@toddflaw.com - Law Offices of
Todd M Friedman PC, Adrienne D. McEntee
-amcentee@terrellmarshall.com - Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC,
pro hac vice, Beth E. Terrell - bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -
Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Jason A. Ibey - jason@kazlg.com -
Kazerouni Law Group APC & Jennifer Rust Murray
-jmurray@terrellmarshall.com - Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro
hac vice

John Monteleone, Plaintiff, represented by Adrian Robert Bacon ,
Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC, Alexander H. Burke , Burke Law
Offices LLC, Jason A. Ibey , Kazerouni Law Group APC, Matthew M.
Loker , Kazerouni Law Group APC, Meghan Elisabeth George , Law
Offices of Todd M Friedman PC, Seyed Abbas Kazerounian , Kazerouni
Law Group APC, Thomas Edward Wheeler , Law Offices of Todd M
Friedman PC, Todd M. Friedman , Law Office of Todd M Friedman PC,
Adrienne D. McEntee , Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac
vice, Matthew R. Mendelsohn , Mazie Slater Katz and Freeman LLC,
pro hac vice & Beth E. Terrell , Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC.

HSBC Bank USA, National Association, Erroneously Sued As HSBC
Mortgage Corporation, Defendant, represented by Julia B. Strickland
– jstrickland@stroock.com - Stroock and Stroock and Lavan LLP,
Kay Fitz-Patrick - KFitz-Patrick@manatt.com - Manatt, Phelps &
Phillips, LLP, Marcos Daniel Sasso - sassom@ballardspahr.com -
Ballard Spahr LLP, Shannon Elizabeth Dudic -
shannon.dudic@dlapiper.com - Stroock and Stroock and Lavan LLP,
Arjun P. Rao –arao@stroock.com -  Stroock and Stroock and Lavan
LLP, Daniel J.T. McKenna - MCKENNAD BALLARDSPAHR.COM - Ballard
Spahr LLP, pro hac vice & Matthew A. Morr - MORRM@BALLARDSPAHR.COM
-  Ballard Spahr LLP, pro hac vice.

PHH Mortgage Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kay
Fitz-Patrick , Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Marcos Daniel Sasso
, Ballard Spahr LLP, Mark D. Lonergan - mdl@severson.com - Severson
and Werson APC, Daniel J.T. McKenna , Ballard Spahr LLP, pro hac
vice, Loren W. Coe  - lwc@severson.com - Severson and Werson PC &
Matthew A. Morr , Ballard Spahr LLP, pro hac vice.

IC SYSTEMS: Carter Sues in D. Arizona Alleging Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IC Systems
Incorporated, et al. The case is styled as Crystal Carter,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IC
Systems Incorporated, Unknown Parties named as: John Does 1-25,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00930-JJT (D. Ariz., May 14, 2020).
  
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

IC System, Inc. was founded in 1941. The Company's line of business
includes collection and adjustment services on claims and other
insurance related issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS PLLC
          285 Passaic St.
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (347) 668-9326
          Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


ICON INFORMATION: Crout Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Workers
---------------------------------------------------------
LON CROUT, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ICON INFORMATION CONSULTANTS, LP., Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-01559 (S.D. Tex., May 1, 2020) is a class and collective
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Maintenance Planner from
June 2018 until August 2019.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40
hours in a week which is reflected in Defendant's payroll records.
However, Defendant paid Plaintiff the same hourly rate for all
hours worked, including those hours in excess of 40 hours in a
single workweek. Thereby, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff
overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek.

Icon Information Consultants, LP provides staff augmentation,
outsourcing, project management, and payroll services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: 713-352-1100
          Fax: 713-352-3300
          Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com

                - and –

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: 713-877-8788
          Fax: 713-877-8065
          Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


INDEPENDENT BANK: Trial in BOH Holdings Merger Suit to Begin 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Bank Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a court has entered a
new scheduling order moving the trial in the suit related to the
acquisition of BOH Holdings, Inc., to March next year.

Independent Bank is a party to a legal proceeding inherited by
Independent Bank in connection with the Company's acquisition of
BOH Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary, Bank of Houston, or BOH,
that was completed on April 15, 2014.

Several entities related to R. A. Stanford, or the Stanford
Entities, including Stanford International Bank, Ltd., or SIBL, had
deposit accounts at BOH.

Certain individuals who had purchased certificates of deposit from
SIBL filed a class action lawsuit against several banks, including
BOH, on November 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, in a case styled Peggy Roif
Rotstain, et al. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. Trustmark National Bank, et al., Civil Action No.
3:09-CV-02384-N-BG.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were
victims of fraud by SIBL and other Stanford Entities and seeks to
recover damages and alleged fraudulent transfers by the defendant
banks.

On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting permission
to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this case, which
motion was subsequently granted.

The Second Amended Class Action Complaint asserted previously
unasserted claims, including aiding and abetting or participation
in a fraudulent scheme based upon the large amount of deposits that
the Stanford Entities held at BOH and the alleged knowledge of
certain BOH officers.

The plaintiffs seek recovery from Independent Bank and other
defendants for their losses. The case was inactive due to a
court-ordered discovery stay issued March 2, 2015 pending the
Court's ruling on plaintiff's motion for class certification and
designation of class representatives and counsel. On November 7,
2017, the Court issued an order denying the plaintiff’s motion.

In addition, the Court lifted the previously ordered discovery
stay. On January 11, 2018, the Court entered a scheduling order
providing that the case be ready for trial on January 27, 2020.

Due to agreed upon extensions of discovery on July 25, 2019, the
Court amended the scheduling order to provide that the case be
ready for trial on January 11, 2021.

In light of additional agreed upon extensions of discovery
deadlines, the Court entered a new scheduling order on March 9,
2020, which now provides that the case be ready for trial March 15,
2021.

The Company has experienced an increase in legal fees associated
with the defense of this claim and anticipates further increases in
legal fees as the case proceeds to trial.

Independent Bank Group, Inc. operates as a national commercial
bank. The Bank offers personal and business banking services.
Independent Bank provides personal checking accounts, loans, debit
and credit cards, mobile banking, and investment services.
Independent Bank Group serves customers in the State of Texas. The
company is based in McKinney, Texas.


INDEPENDENT ORDER: Fabricant Sues Over Nuisance Telemarketing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INDEPENDENT ORDER OF FORESTERS and MARK BLOCK, Case No.
2:20-cv-04364 (C.D. Cal., May 14, 2020), is brought against
Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
a federal statute enacted in response to widespread public outrage
about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing
practices.

Foresters contact with potential new customers is limited, as they
engage third parties, such as Mr. Block, to telemarket on their
behalf to consumers, according to the complaint. The Defendants'
strategy for generating new customers involves the use of an
automatic telephone dialing system to solicit business. Recipients
of these calls, including the Plaintiff, did not consent to receive
them. The Plaintiff and all members of the Class have been harmed
by the acts of the Defendants because their privacy has been
violated, they were annoyed and harassed, and, in some instances,
they were charged for incoming calls.

The Plaintiff is an individual residing in California.

Independent Order of Foresters is a fraternal organization based in
Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Foresters offers insurance service
products in this District.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Schwartz, Esq.
          ADAM J. SCHWARTZ, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          5670 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1800
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Phone: (323) 455-4016
          Email: adam@ajschwartzlaw.com

               - and -

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (508) 221-1510
          Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
          Jonathan P. Misny, Esq.
          MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
          1114 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (614) 488-0400
          Fax: (614) 488-0401
          Email: murphy@mmmb.com
                 misny@mmmb.com


INDIAN HEALTH: South Dakota District Dismisses Gilbert Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONNA M. GILBERT, JULIE MOHNEY, CHARMAINE WHITE FACE,
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RADM MICHAEL D.
WEAHKEE, Principal Deputy Director of Indian Health Service (IHS);
JAMES DRIVING HAWK, Great Plains IHS Area Director; and WILLIAM
BARR, United States Attorney General, Defendants, Case No. Civ.
19-5045-JLV (D. S.D.), Judge Jeffrey L. Viken of the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Dakota, Western Division, (a)
granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss; and (b) denied as moot
(i) the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and motion for
summary judgment, and (ii) the Defendants' motions to strike.

The Plaintiffs, Native Americans residing in Rapid City, South
Dakota, commenced the action challenging the decision of the Indian
Health Service ("IHS") to enter into a self-determination contract
with the Great Plains Tribal Chairmen's Health Board.  The contract
permits the Health Board to operate portions of IHS' facilities in
Rapid City, including the Sioux San hospital, now known as the
Oyate Health Center.

The Plaintiffs assert the contract violates the Fort Laramie Treaty
of 1868 between the United States and the Great Sioux Nation and
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
("ISDEAA").  They ask the court to enjoin the contract and
reinstate IHS control over the Rapid City facilities.  Also pending
before the court are the Plaintiffs' motions for class
certification and summary judgment.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.  They argue the
Plaintiffs lack standing, failed to join indispensable parties,
failed to state a viable treaty claim, and do not merit injunctive
relief.  The Defendants also oppose class certification and assert
summary judgment is inappropriate.

Judge Viken finds that the Plaintiffs do not have zone-of-interest
standing to sue for relief under the ISDEAA.  The Plaintiffs did
not establish that they fall within the zone of interests protected
by the ISDEAA.  The ISDEAA's right of action does not encompass
their suit to enjoin the self-determination contract between the
IHS and the Health Board.  Accordingly, Judge Viken dismisses the
plaintiffs' ISDEAA claim with prejudice.

Next, Judge Viken finds that the Fort Laramie Treaty does not
provide a private right of action under these circumstances.  The
Plaintiffs cannot sue as individuals to enforce the Treaty of Fort
Laramie's provisions relating to health care.  The Treaty of Fort
Laramie also does not guarantee an individual Indian the right to
health care provided by the United States, as opposed to a tribal
organization.  On the present record, the court cannot accept Ms.
White Face's assertion that she is entitled, as Spokesperson of the
Treaty Council, to sue on behalf of the Great Sioux Nation.  The
Judge dismisses the treaty claim with prejudice for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Finally, Judge Viken finds that the Health Board is an
indispensable party that cannot be joined due to sovereign
immunity.  First, the Health Board is indispensable to litigation
concerning the present self-determination contract.  Second, the
Health Board's immunity from suit renders joinder infeasible in the
case.  Third, the Plaintiffs retain a political remedy through
engagement with their tribal governments.  In any event, the Health
Board's sovereign immunity and the impossibility of avoiding
prejudice to the Health Board by proceeding with the litigation tip
the scales in favor of dismissing the case for lack of joinder.
The Court dismisses plaintiff's complaint without prejudice under
Rule 19(b).

The Plaintiffs' complaint asked for an "immediate injunction" to
halt the self-determination contract.  The Defendants oppose
injunctive relief.  Because the Plaintiffs cannot succeed on the
merits, the Court denies an injunction.

The Court concludes that the case raises delicate questions about
the role of the Rapid City Native American community in the
governance of the Rapid City Service Unit.  The Court wishes to
emphasize that the Order holds only that individuals, such as the
Plaintiffs, cannot challenge a self-governance contract under the
ISDEAA or the Fort Laramie Treaty and that the Health Board is an
indispensable party to any litigation concerning the particular
contract at issue in the case.  The RST's rescission of its prior
authorization and the possibility the CRST will hold a referendum
regarding its authorization indicate the unsettled status of the
assumption process.  The Court expresses no view about potential
other challenges to the self-determination contract by any of the
three affected tribal nations.

For the reasons given, Judge Viken granted the Defendants' motion
to dismiss as described.  The Judge dismissed with prejudice the
Plaintiffs' claims under the ISDEAA and the 1868 Treaty of Fort
Laramie.  The Judge denied as moot (i) the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and motion for summary judgment, and (ii) the
Defendants' motions to strike.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 18, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/oS0LIu from Leagle.com.

Donna M. Gilbert, and others similarly situated, Julie Mohney, and
others similarly situated & Charmaine White Face, and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Patrick A. Lee.

RADM Michael D. Weahkee, Principal Deputy Director Indian Health
Service (IHS), James Driving Hawk, Great Plains IHS Area Director &
William Barr, United States Attorney General, Defendants,
represented by SaraBeth Donovan, U.S. Attorney's Office.


INTEGRATED COMMUNICATION: Randall Suit Seeks Minimum and OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL RANDALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INTEGRATED COMMUNICATION SERVICE, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-05438 (W.D. Wash., May 8, 2020), challenges ICS's policies
and practices of denying proper payment of all wages, including
minimum and overtime wages, compensation for non-productive work
time, reimbursement, and improper deductions, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and Washington wage and hour
laws.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant failed to authorize,
permit and/or make available meal periods.

The Plaintiff and members of the Collective and Class are current
and former non-exempt employees of the Defendant.

ICS was founded in 1981. The Company's line of business includes
the wholesale distribution of electronic parts and electronic
communications equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, Esq.
          Michelle S. Lim, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
                  mlim@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Krysten Connon, Esq.
          Shoshana Savett, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  kconnon@bm.net
                  stsavett@bm.net


INTEGRITY FIRE: Landin Suit Challenges Wage Violations Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK LANDIN v. INTEGRITY FIRE SAFETY SERVICES, LLC, and ERIC
WILLIAMS, an individual, Case No. 1:20-cv-01302 (D. Colo., May 8,
2020), is brought by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees to challenge the Defendants' wage violations and to
recover unpaid or underpaid wages and other damages under the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Colorado
Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff contends that he worked for the Defendants as a
Senior Estimator for ten months. He adds that during those times,
he was not properly paid his earned commissions, was not paid
overtime wages, and was not paid the entirety of a promised and
earned bonus.

Integrity Fire purchases supplies, equipment and other necessary
items to run its services and serve its customers from out of state
vendors selling such supplies, and equipment originating outside
the state of Colorado. Mr. Williams exercised substantial control
over the functions of the Company's employees including the
Plaintiff. He had the ability and authority to hire and fire
employees, set rates of pay, and set employee schedules.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Penn A. Dodson, Esq.
          ANDERSON DODSON, P.C.
          11 Broadway, Suite 615
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 961-7639
          Facsimile: (646) 998-8051
          E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com


INTELSAT SA: Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Motion Set for June 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on April 26 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Intelsat S.A. (NYSE:I)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/intelsat-s-a-loss-submission-form?prid=6184&wire=1

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 8, 2020

Class Period: November 5, 2019 to November 18, 2019

The complaint filed against BC Partners, its individual partners
and directors of Intelsat Raymond Svider and Justice Bateman, and
Silver Lake Group, L.L.C. (and its related entities) alleges that
throughout the class period, defendants made false and misleading
statements to the market. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Silver Lake and its fellow defendants violated the Exchange Act by
selling a block of Intelsat's shares while holding material
non-public information, including the fact that the Company had met
with the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC") on November
5, 2019 to discussed the sale of spectrum controlled by Intelsat
for future "5G" use (the "C-Band"). The FCC opposed Intelsat's
proposal for a private sale of the C-Band, preferring a public
auction. The FCC announced a public auction of the C-Band on
November 18, 2019, contrary to Intelsat's wishes, its stock dropped
40%.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


INTELSAT SA: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
investors who purchased Intelsat S.A. ("Intelsat" or the Company")
(NYSE: I) shares between November 5, 2019 and November 18, 2019
inclusive (the "Class Period).

All investors who purchased shares of Intelsat S.A. and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of you may, no later than
June 8, 2020, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of
the proposed class.

On November 5, 2019, Intelsat had met with the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to discuss the private sale of
certain wavebands controlled by Intelsat for future "5G" use (the
"C-Band") and that the FCC opposed Intelsat's then-existing
proposal, instead favoring a public auction rather than private
sale of the C-Band.

Then on November 18, 2019, the FCC announced that it would publicly
auction the C-Band that Intelsat had been hoping to sell
privately.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $5.38 per share, or
over 40%, to close at $8.03 per share, thereby injuring investors.

According to the filed complaint, defendants violated provisions of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by selling Intelsat shares
while in possession of material non-public information, including
that the FCC opposed Intelsat's proposal and instead favored a
public auction of the C-Band.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, contact:

         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
         Kevin Cooper, Esq.
         Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
         E-mail: gstone@whafh.com
                 kcooper@whafh.com
                 classmember@whafh.com
         Tel: (800) 575-0735
              (212) 545-4774 [GN]


INTERO REAL: Enforcement of Subpoena to Arch in Chinitz Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RONALD CHINITZ, Plaintiff, v. INTERO REAL ESTATE
SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. A-20-MC-0081-LY (W.D. Tex.),
Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, Austin Division, granted in part the
Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Compliance with Plaintiff's Subpoena
to Non-Party Arch Telecom, Inc.

On Sept. 13, 2018, Plaintiff Chinitz filed the class action lawsuit
against Defendant Inter in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA") and
California's Unfair Competition Law by calling him and other
similarly situated individuals who registered on the National Do
Not Call Registry.

On Oct. 31, 2019, the Plaintiff subpoenaed Non-Party Arch Telecom,
Inc. to produce certain documents, from Sept. 13, 2014 to the
present, related to calling and cold-call lead generating services
that Arch allegedly provided to the Defendant.  The Subpoena
commanded Arch to produce the documents at First Legal Records in
Austin, Texas.  Arch objected to the Subpoena, contending that it
was overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant and
confidential information.

On Jan. 23, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel
Enforcement of the Subpoena pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 45(d)(2)(B) and 26(b)(1).  In the alternative, Plaintiff
asks the Court to transfer the Motion to Compel pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f) to the Northern District of
California where the underlying action is pending.

Judge Hightower has reviewed the docket and filings in the
California litigation and finds that although the place of
compliance for the subpoena is Austin, Texas, the California court
should rule on the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel.  The transfer of
the Motion to Compel will advance the interests of consistency and
judicial economy and place the California court in the best
position to manage this class action.  The California court already
has made numerous rulings on discovery motions in the case, and in
one order noted that discovery has "been marked by gamesmanship."

The Court finds that the California court is in the best position
to make rulings on the scope of discovery and to evaluate the
relevance of the requested documents and any undue burden the
production might cause.  Any ruling by the Court has the potential
to disrupt the California court's management of the underlying
case, both procedurally and substantively.  Uniformity of discovery
rulings in a case of this complexity is critical to achieving
fairness to the parties and non-parties.  In sum, the transfer of
the Motion to Compel will advance the interests of consistency and
judicial economy in the case.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Hightower granted in part the
Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Compliance with Plaintiff's Subpoena
to Non-Party Arch Telecom, Inc.  The Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce
Compliance with Plaintiff's Subpoena to Non-Party Arch Telecom,
Inc. is transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division.  This cause of action is
closed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/SEJBUN from Leagle.com.

Ronald Chinitz, Movant, represented by Lance N. Stott, Law Office
of Lance N. Stott.


INVENTION SUBMISSION: Faces Miclaus AIPA Suit Over Promotion Scam
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Geta Miclaus, and Vim and Kevin Byrne, On Behalf of Themselves and
All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Invention Submission
Corporation d/b/a InventHelp, Technosystems Consolidated Corp.,
Technosystems Service Corp., Western Invention Submission Corp.
d/b/a/ Western InventHelp, Universal Payment Corporation, Intromark
Incorporated, Robert J. Susa, Thomas Frost, P.A., Thomas Frost,
John Doe Companies 1-10, John Doe Individuals 1-10, Case No.
2:20-cv-681 (May 7, 2020), arises out of a deceptive and fraudulent
invention promotion scam that has bilked thousands of aspiring
inventors into paying millions of dollars to the Defendants.

The gravamen of this case is the Defendants' alleged outright,
deliberate and fraudulent violation of the American Inventors
Protection Act of 1999.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' AIPA disclosures omit
statutorily-mandated information. For example, Western InventHelp
clients are not provided with proper AIPA-mandated disclosures. The
disclosures on behalf of Western InventHelp omit information
regarding clients' receipt of licensing agreements, among other
omissions, they add.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' entire business model
and enterprise is fraudulent, from start to finish. After being
lured in by the Defendants' slick advertising and sales tactics,
Class Plaintiffs are induced to sign expensive Submission Agreement
contracts based upon the Defendants' purposefully incomplete patent
searches and basic information package reports.

This action is filed as a related action to Calhoun v. Invention
Submission Corporation et al., Case No. 18-1022. The Class
Representatives are individuals, who signed contracts with the
Defendants in 2017 and received disclosures from the Defendants
that contain significant omissions.

ISC is one of America's leading inventor service company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marc S. OxmanMarc S. Oxman
          Julie Pechersky Plitt, Esq.
          OXMAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          120 Bloomingdale Road, Suite 100
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: (914) 422-3900
          Facsimile: (914) 422-3636
          E-mail: jplitt@oxmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Ira M. Press, Esq.
          Andrew M. McNeela, Esq.
          Karina Kosharskyy, Esq.
          KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
          250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
          New York, NY 10177
          E-mail: ipress@kmllp.com
                  amcneela@kmllp.com
                  kkosharskyy@kmllp.com

               - and -

          Stanley W. Greenfield, Esq.
          GREENFIELD AND KRAUT
          1040 Fifth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 261-4466
          E-mail: greenfieldandkraut@verizon.net


IQIYI INC: Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Motion Set for June 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class action has been
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in iQIYI, Inc. If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be
no obligation or cost to you.

iQIYI, Inc. (IQ)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/iqiyi-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=6184&wire=1

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2020

Class Period: March 29, 2018 to April 7, 2020

Allegations against IQ include that: (1) iQIYI inflated its revenue
figures; (2) iQIYI inflated its user numbers; (3) iQIYI inflated
its expenses to cover up other fraud; and (4) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


IROBOT CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
iRobot Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the company continues
to defend the consolidated Miramar Firefighters' Pension Fund v.
iRobot Corporation, et al. and Campbell v. iRobot Corporation, et
al. suit.

On October 24, 2019, purported Company shareholder Miramar
Firefighters' Pension Fund filed a putative class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of its directors and officers, captioned
Miramar Firefighters' Pension Fund v. iRobot Corporation, et al.,
No. 1:19-cv-09837.  

The case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

A similar case captioned Campbell v. iRobot Corporation, et al.,
No. 1:19-cv-12483 was also filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and subsequently transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On January 24, 2020, the Court consolidated the Miramar and
Campbell cases and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
Counsel.

On April 3, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based on allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions concerning the impact of
competition and Section 301 tariffs on the Company's financial
performance.

iRobot Corporation manufactures robots that vacuum and wash floors
and perform battlefield reconnaissance and bomb disposal. The
Company markets its products to consumers through retailers, the
United States military, and other government agencies worldwide.
The company is based in Bedford, Massachusetts.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Issues Protective Order in Chamlin Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MATTHEW CHAMLIN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON
and McNEIL NUTRITIONALS, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03852-AJN (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Alison J. Nathan of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York has entered a
Stipulated Protective Order.

In the Action, the Parties expect to exchange confidential and
highly confidential information regarding the products that are the
subject of th Action.  They have stipulated to the entry of the
Order governing the exchange and use of confidential and highly
confidential documents and information.

Information and materials designated "Confidential" or "Highly
Confidential" will be used only for prosecuting or defending the
Action, except that a party may use its own "Confidential" or
"Highly Confidential" information for whatever purposes it chooses.
A party using, disseminating or distributing "Confidential" or
"Highly Confidential" information for any purpose other than for
use in connection with the Action may be subject to sanctions
(including, without limitation, monetary, evidentiary or
terminating sanctions, in the Court's discretion), as well as being
potentially subject to any disciplinary or other applicable legal
proceedings.

If a party files or seeks to file with the Court material that
another party has designated "Confidential" or "Highly
Confidential" under the Order, the filing party will simultaneously
file an ex parte application to seal the records that references
the Order and that specifically sets forth the terms, or any other
procedure that the Court deems appropriate.  In doing so, the
filing party will only seek to file under seal the portion of such
material that is "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential."  Any
request to seal documents must comply with Rule 4.B of the Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases governing filing under seal.

The Order does not govern or restrict the use of any document or
information (including information designated as "Confidential" or
"Highly Confidential" under the Order) at trial in any manner
whatsoever.  The designation of any information, documents, or
things as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential" information
pursuant to the Order will not, in and of itself, raise any
inference as to the confidentiality of any information, documents,
exhibits, or things marked for identification purposes or
introduced into evidence at trial.

If the Action is concluded before trial is commenced, the Order
will remain in full force and effect after such conclusion and the
Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce its terms.  In such a
case, all materials (including copies) containing information
designated as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential" will be
returned to the Producing Party, or will be disposed of in a manner
assuring its confidential destruction, within the following time
period: Within 30 days after final termination of the Action either
by consensual dismissal with prejudice, after final appellate
review has been obtained, or after the time for appeal has lapsed
without the filing of an appeal by either of the parties, each
party will provide to the Designating Party a declaration
certifying compliance with the paragraph.

Within 30 days of production, the Producing Party will produce a
privilege log that complies with all requirements set forth in Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii).

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 18, 2020 Stipulated
Protective Order is available at https://is.gd/bQgjUk from
Leagle.com.

Matthew Chamlin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Ignatius Marchese --
jmarchese@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Johnson & Johnson & McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Carlos M. Lazatin -- clazatin@omm.com -- O'Melveny &
Myers, LLP, Hannah Yael Shay Chanoine -- hchanoine@omm.com --
O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Richard Blair Goetz -- rgoetz@omm.com --
O'Melveny & Myers, LLP.


JOHNSTON HEALTH: Judgment on Pleadings in Barnard Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICIA BARNARD, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSTON HEALTH SERVICES
CORPORATION d/b/a JOHNSTON HEALTH, and ACCELERATED CLAIMS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. COA19-290 (N.C. App.), the Court of Appeals of
North Carolina affirmed the trial court's judgment on the pleadings
in favor of the Defendants.

Plaintiff Barnard sustained injuries in a motor vehicle collision
on Oct. 17, October 2016 and was taken to Johnston Health for
treatment.  Per Johnston Health's patient intake practice, upon
entry, patients are asked to sign admission paperwork, provide
proof of health insurance and confirm if treatment is sought as a
result of an automobile accident.

Accelerated Claims, Inc. ("ACI"), an account management company,
regularly assisted Johnston Health with account management for
emergency patients involved in motor vehicle accidents.  Once a
patient is determined to have an automobile liability policy that
contains medical payments coverage, Johnston Health assigns the
patient account to ACI for collection of benefits.

Upon arriving at Johnston Health's emergency department, Phe
plaintiff executed a "General Consent for Treatment" form.  The
consent form contained an assignment of benefits clause.

At the time of admission, the Plaintiff had an automobile insurance
policy with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.  The State
Farm policy, in part, provided the Plaintiff, as the insured, with
coverage for medical expenses caused by a motor vehicle accident
("MedPay").  The Plaintiff, a former state employee, was also
insured by Blue Cross Blue Shield ("BCBS") through its State Health
Plan.  After the Plaintiff was discharged, Johnston Health
submitted claims regarding medical expenses she incurred to both
insurers.  ACI was assigned the Plaintiff's account to manage and
collect payments under the automobile insurance policy from State
Farm.

On Jan. 13, 2017, Johnston Health received a payment of $2,000 from
State Farm -- the maximum MedPay available under the policy.  The
payment was credited to the Plaintiff's account.  On May 2, 2017,
Johnston Health received payment of $694.63 from BCBS.  After the
BCBS payment was applied, the Plaintiff's account had a credit
balance.  Johnston Health refunded the credit to BCBS pursuant to
the subrogation clause in the Plaintiff's BCBS policy.

In 2018, the Plaintiff initiated a class action lawsuit against
Johnston Health and ACI, alleging that the Defendants improperly
conspired to recover payments from automobile insurance companies,
who insure emergency room patients in car accidents.  She filed a
complaint and an amended complaint.  The Defendants filed separate
answers denying wrongdoing.  They asserted that the Plaintiff
executed an assignment of all health and liability insurance
benefits, otherwise payable to her, prior to receiving medical
treatment.

On Oct. 18, 2018, the Plaintiff filed for a motion for partial
judgment on the pleadings arguing that the Defendants were not
entitled to collect MedPay from State Farm.  The Defendants
answered and moved for judgment on the pleadings as to all claims
asserted by the Plaintiff.

On Nov. 1, 2018, the trial court denied the Plaintiff's motion and
granted the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.  The
trial court found that the Plaintiff executed an assignment of
benefits to Johnston Health.

The Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.  On appeal, Plaintiff
argues the trial court erred by: (I) entering judgment in favor of
the Defendants regarding her MedPay benefits, and (II) finding that
BCBS was entitled to recover the overpayment from her account.

The Appellate Court holds that the purpose of MedPay in the State
Farm policy is to afford financial assistance to the insured for
medical services and treatment sought as a result of a car
accident.  By these terms, it is reasonable that a person, insured
with State Farm, should interpret MedPay as providing additional
health insurance benefits.  Therefore, it was not error for the
trial court to determine that MedPay benefits constitute -- at
least in part -- health benefits and that the Plaintiff's
assignment of benefits included those MedPay benefits.  The
Plaintiff's argument is overruled.

The Plaintiff argues the BCBS subrogation clause in the plan could
not be enforced against MedPay benefits from State Farm.  Plaintiff
argues that N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 135-48, which allows
subrogation by BCBS, actually bars BCBS's right to subrogation.

The Appellate Court finds the Plaintiff's argument to be without
merit.  However, even if there was some merit afforded to her
argument, the Appellate Court has recognized that an insurer has
equitable subrogation rights in recovering payments pursuant to
medical payment provisions in an automobile insurance policy.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's coverage with State Farm entitled BCBS,
not her, to be reimbursed for any overpayment of medical expenses.
The Plaintiff's argument is overruled.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Appellate Court
affirmed the trial court's judgment on the pleadings for the
Defendants.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Feb. 18, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/vOU8c7 from Leagle.com.

The Armstrong Law Firm, P.A., by L. Lamar Armstrong, III and L.
Lamar Armstrong, Jr. and White & Stradley, PLLC, by J. David
Stradley for plaintiff-appellant.

Yates, McLamb & Weyher, L.L.P., by Dan J. McLamb --
dmclamb@ymwlaw.com -- and Allison J. Becker -- abecker@ymwlaw.com
-- for defendant-appellee Johnston Health Services Corporation
d/b/a Johnston Health.

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, by John M. Moye --
jmoye@kilpatricktownsend.com -- for defendant-appellee Accelerated
Claims, Inc


KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM: Outzen Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. Ind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MONIQUE OUTZEN and ROBERT
ARDAIOLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM USA, INC. and GILA, LLC, Case No.
49D14-2003-CT-012573, was removed from the Indiana Superior Court
for the County of Marion to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis) on April 30, 2020.

The Southern District of Indiana Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01286-TWP-MJD to the proceeding.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.

Kapsch TrafficCom provides traffic management services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jacob R. Cox, Esq.
          COX LAW OFFICE
          1606 N. Delaware Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46202
          Telephone: (317) 884-8550
          Facsimile: (317) 660-2453
          E-mail: jcox@coxlaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathon Noyes, Esq.
          William E. Winingham, Esq.
          WILSON KEHOE & WININGHAM
          2859 North Meridian Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46208
          Telephone: (317) 920-6400
          Facsimile: (317) 920-6405
          E-mail: JNoyes@wkw.com
                  winingham@wkw.com

Defendant Kapsch Trafficcom USA, Inc. is represented by:

          Darren Andrew Craig, Esq.
          FROST BROWN TODD LLC
          201 North Illinois Street, Suite 1900
          P.O. Box 44961
          Indianapolis, IN 46244-0961
          Telephone: (317) 237-3800
          Facsimile: (317) 237-3900
          E-mail: dcraig@fbtlaw.com

Defendant GILA, LLC is represented is by:

          Jonathan W. Garlough, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          321 N. Clark St., Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60654-5313
          Telephone: (312) 832-5702
          Facsimile: (312) 832-4700
          E-mail: jgarlough@foley.com


KAY IMPORT: Kim Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Il Soo Kim and Kyong Song, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. KAY IMPORT, INC. and YOO YOUNG CHUNG, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02065-TWT (N.D. Ga., May 14, 2020), is brought pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime wages
owed to the Plaintiffs.

The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for each hour worked over 40 hours in a
week, according to the complaint. Instead, the Defendants only paid
the Plaintiffs a fixed hourly wage regardless of the hours worked.

The Plaintiffs were employed as a stocker, a cashier and/or a sales
associate by the Defendants.

Kay Import owns and operates a retail stores in Northern District
of Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian G Kim, Esq.
          BRIAN PLAINTIFFS, PC
          1815 Satellite Blvd. #403
          Duluth, GA 30097
          Phone: 678.878.4200
          Facsimile: 404.878.4208
          Email: brian@briankimpc.com


KEVIN ISON: Settlement in Simon Suit FLSA Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRANDON SIMON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KEVIN J. ISON
DMD PSC, d/b/a ORTHODONTIC SPECIALISTS, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-458 (S.D. Ohio), Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division, has granted final approval to the Parties' Joint Motion
for Certification of Settlement Class and Approval of Settlement
Agreement.

The Court has determined that the Settlement Agreement in the case
is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and
is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over
claims asserted under the Fair Labor Standards Act and comparable
wage laws of the State of Ohio and Commonwealth of Kentucky.

The Parties are thus authorized to distribute checks for Individual
Settlement amounts to all the Participating Settlement Class
Members representing their share of the Settlement Fund for payment
of overtime and liquidated damages as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement

The Class Representative payments will be paid to Plaintiffs
Brandon Simon and Lainey Hollingsworth in the amount of $3,500 each
for their services to the Class.  The Attorneys' fees in the amount
of $55 million for legal services performed in prosecuting and
settling the claims in the action, inclusive of costs in providing
notice and administrative services, is awarded to the Plaintiffs'
Class Counsel.

All claims as specified in the Settlement Agreement by all the
Participating Settlement Class Members who did not properly and
timely opt-out of the settlement are released.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 18, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/w4rYj8 from Leagle.com.

Brandon Simon & Lainey Hollingsworth, Plaintiffs, represented by
Bruce H. Meizlish -- brucelaw@meizgray.com -- Meizlish & Grayson,
Deborah R. Grayson, Meizlish & Grayson & Stephen E. Imm --
Stephen@FinneyLawFirm.com -- Finney Law Firm.

Kevin J. Ison DMD PSC, doing business as Orthodontic Specialists,
GID Orthodontics LLC, doing business as Orthodontic Specialists &
DMD, MS Kevin J. Ison, Defendants, represented by Mark B. Gerano --
Mark.Gerano@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., Ryan Michael
Martin --  Ryan.Martin@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. &
Katherine B. Capito -- kcapito@fbtlaw.com -- Frost, Brown, Todd
LLC, pro hac vice.


KRAFT HEINZ: Hollywood Police Officers' Retirement Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Kraft Heinz Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a securities class action suit entitled, City of
Hollywood Police Officers' Retirement System v. The Kraft Heinz
Company, et al.

A securities class action lawsuit entitled, City of Hollywood
Police Officers' Retirement System v. The Kraft Heinz Company, et
al., was filed on March 25, 2020 against the Company and one of its
current officers, one of its former officers, one of its current
directors, and the 3G Entities in the Northern District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint also asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on
allegedly materially false or misleading statements and omissions
in public statements, press releases, investor presentations,
earnings calls, and SEC filings regarding the Company's business,
financial results, and internal controls, and further alleges the
3G Entities engaged in insider trading and misappropriated the
Company's material, non-public information.

The plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys’
fees, and other relief.

The Kraft Heinz Company manufactures and markets food and beverage
products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally.
Its products include condiments and sauces, cheese and dairy
products, meals, meats, refreshment beverages, coffee, and other
grocery products. The company was formerly known as H.J. Heinz
Holding Corporation and changed its name to The Kraft Heinz Company
in July 2015. The Kraft Heinz Company was founded in 1869 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


KRAFT HEINZ: Osborne Suit v. Employee Benefits Board Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Kraft Heinz Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the company's Employee
Benefits Administration Board continues to defend a class action
suit entitled, Osborne v. Employee Benefits Administration Board of
Kraft Heinz, et al.

The company's Employee Benefits Administration Board and certain of
its current and former officers and employees are currently
defendants in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA")
class action lawsuit, Osborne v. Employee Benefits Administration
Board of Kraft Heinz, et al., which was filed on March 19, 2019 in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania and was subsequently transferred to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs in
the lawsuit purport to represent a class of current and former
employees who were participants in and beneficiaries of various
retirement plans which were co-invested in a commingled investment
fund known as the Kraft Foods Savings Plan Master Trust (the
"Master Trust") during the period of May 4, 2017 through February
21, 2019. An amended complaint was filed on June 28, 2019.

The amended complaint alleges violations of Section 502 of ERISA
based on alleged breaches of obligations as fiduciaries subject to
ERISA by allowing the Master Trust to continue investing in our
common stock, and alleges additional breaches of fiduciary duties
by current and former officers for their purported failure to
monitor Master Trust fiduciaries.

The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys’
fees, and other relief.

The Kraft Heinz Company manufactures and markets food and beverage
products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally.
Its products include condiments and sauces, cheese and dairy
products, meals, meats, refreshment beverages, coffee, and other
grocery products. The company was formerly known as H.J. Heinz
Holding Corporation and changed its name to The Kraft Heinz Company
in July 2015. The Kraft Heinz Company was founded in 1869 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


KRAFT HEINZ: Union Asset Management Holding AG Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Kraft Heinz Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated securities class action suit entitled,
Union Asset Management Holding AG, et al. v. The Kraft Heinz
Company, et al.

The company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors are currently defendants in a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Union Asset Management
Holding AG, et al. v. The Kraft Heinz Company, et al.

The consolidated class action complaint, which was filed on January
6, 2020 and also names 3G Capital, Inc. and several of its
subsidiaries and affiliates ("3G Entities") as defendants, asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
based on allegedly materially false or misleading statements and
omissions in public statements, press releases, investor
presentations, earnings calls, and SEC filings regarding the
Company's business, financial results, and internal controls, and
further alleges the 3G Entities engaged in insider trading and
misappropriated the Company's material, non-public information.

The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys’
fees, and other relief.

The Kraft Heinz Company manufactures and markets food and beverage
products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally.
Its products include condiments and sauces, cheese and dairy
products, meals, meats, refreshment beverages, coffee, and other
grocery products. The company was formerly known as H.J. Heinz
Holding Corporation and changed its name to The Kraft Heinz Company
in July 2015. The Kraft Heinz Company was founded in 1869 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


LANSING TRADE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Budicak Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BUDICAK, INC., BLUE MARLIN ARBITRAGE, LLC, and PRIME
TRADING, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. LANSING TRADE GROUP, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-CV-2449-JAR-ADM (D. Kan.), Judge Julie E.
Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
denied Defendant Cascade Commodity Consulting, LLC's Motion to
Dismiss for Improper Venue or, Alternatively, Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action on behalf of a class
of all purchasers, sellers, and/or holders of wheat futures and
options on futures contracts between Feb. 1, 2015 and March 31,
2015 against Defendants Lansing, Cascade, and certain of their
employees and related entities (John Does 1-10).  The Plaintiffs
allege that during the Class Period, the Defendants manipulated the
prices of Chicago Board of Trade ("CBOT") wheat futures and options
contracts in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act and the
Sherman Antitrust Act.

The Amended Complaint in the putative class action alleges that the
Defendants were involved in manipulating wheat prices from Feb. 1,
2015 to March 31, 2015.  In an effort to recover their respective
losses resulting from the Defendants' alleged wrongdoing, the
Plaintiffs bring putative class action claims for: (1) market
manipulation in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act ("CEA") and
Commodity and Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") Rule 180.2, (2)
employment of a manipulative or deceptive device in violation of
the CEA and CFTC Rule 180.1, (3) principal-agent liability in
violation of the CEA and CFTC Regulation 1.2, (4) aiding and
abetting manipulation in violation of the CEA, (5) unjust
enrichment, and (6) violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act.

Lansing is an international commodity merchandising company that
actively traded CBOT wheat futures and options during the Class
Period.  Cascade is a limited liability company based in Oregon
that Al Conway, its current CEO, founded in 2007.  It produces a
daily cash wheat newsletter, the "Cash Wheat Report," which
contains information about wheat markets such as news, weather,
supply and demand projections, and perspectives about investments.

The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action in federal court in
the Northern District of Illinois on July 20, 2018, naming Lansing
and "John Does 1-6" as the Defendants.  On Sept. 7, 2018, Lansing
moved to transfer the case to the District of Kansas.  The
Plaintiffs then amended their Complaint upon learning the
identities of certain "John Doe" Defendants.  The Amended Complaint
names Lansing, Cascade, and "John Does 6-10" as the Defendants.

While Lansing's motion to transfer was pending, Cascade did not
file a motion to join or any response opposing transfer.  Instead,
Cascade filed its own motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction.  Ultimately, Judge Chang of the Northern District of
Illinois granted Lansing's motion to transfer the case to the
District of Kansas.  In so doing, Judge Chang terminated all
pending motions without prejudice to refiling.

Cascade moves to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) for
improper venue or, alternatively, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)
for lack of personal jurisdiction.  It contends that since the
Plaintiffs relied on the nationwide service-of-process provision in
the Sherman and Clayton Act to establish personal jurisdiction,
they must also satisfy the venue provisions of those statutes.
Cascade argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to do so, warranting
dismissal.  In the alternative, Cascade contends that if the
Plaintiffs rely on the general venue statute  to render venue
proper in the District of Kansas, then their claims should be
dismissed for want of personal jurisdiction over Cascade.

Judge Robinson finds that the record shows that at least two of
Cascade's 82 annual subscribers have billing addresses in Kansas.
Cascade argues that these subscribers are but a small percentage of
its total subscribers, making its business in Kansas de minimis.
Under this logic, an entity whose customer base is far-reaching and
evenly distributed across multiple judicial districts would avoid
ever being said to "transact business" in any forum.  Indeed,
Cascade made this same "de minimis" argument in its motion to
dismiss when this case was pending in the Northern District of
Illinois to argue it did not transact business in Illinois.  This
is the precise result that Congress sought to avoid when it
broadened the venue provision of the federal antitrust laws.
Moreover, Cascade's business is interstate in nature, relying on
subscribers in a variety of forums. Its business in Kansas, which
includes subscription-based access to daily publications, is
continuous.  Accordingly, Cascade transacts business in Kansas, and
the Plaintiffs satisfy the venue provisions of the Sherman and
Clayton Acts.

Determining that venue is proper under the Sherman and Clayton Acts
does not end the Court's inquiry.  Once a court determines that
jurisdiction and venue are proper under a nationwide
service-of-process statute, it must then consider whether the
exercise of such jurisdiction comports with due process.

Upon consideration of the foregoing factors and the evidence
provided by Cascade, the Court finds that Cascade has not met its
burden to demonstrate that it would suffer constitutionally
significant inconvenience by defending the suit in Kansas.  Even if
Cascade had shown that litigating the case in Kansas would be
gravely difficult, the Court is still permitted to exercise
personal jurisdiction over Cascade if the federal interest in
litigating the dispute in the chosen forum outweighs the burden
imposed on the Defendant.  As previously discussed, the burdens in
the case are relatively minimal and are outweighed by the federal
interest in resolving the putative class action dispute in a single
district.  The exercise of jurisdiction over Cascade in the
District of Kansas comports with the Fifth Amendment, and Cascade's
motion to dismiss is thereby denied.

For the reasons stated, Judge Robinson holds that Cascade is
subject to the personal jurisdiction of the Court and venue is
proper in the District of Kansas.  Defendant Cascade's Motion to
Dismiss is thus denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://is.gd/9xoGaE from Leagle.com.

Budicak Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Maider --
cmaider@lowey.com -- Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., pro hac vice, Brian
P.
O'Connell -- boconnell@caffertyclobes.com -- Cafferty Clobes
Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Geoffrey M. Horn -- ghorn@lowey.com --
Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., Jennifer Winter Sprengel, Cafferty Clobes
Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, 150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60606, Raymond P. Girnys -- rgirnys@lowey.com -- Lowey
Dannenberg, P.C., pro hac vice, Vincent Briganti --
vbriganti@lowey.com -- Lowey Dannenbergt, P.C. & Anthony F. Fata ,
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, 150 South Wacker Drive,
Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606

Prime Trading, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony F. Fata,
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP.

Lansing Trade Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by J. Kevin
McCall
-- jmccall@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Kevin John Murphy --
kmurphy@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block Llp, Nicole Amie Allen --
nallen@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP & Thomas Edward Quinn --
tquinn@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP.

Cascade Commodity Consulting, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Matthew S. Ryan -- mryan@cotsiriloslaw.com -- Cotsirilos, Tighe,
Streicker, Poulos & Campbell, Ltd. & Emily Cohen Rossi Vermylen --
evermylen@cotsiriloslaw.com -- Cotsirilos, Tighe, Streicker,
Poulos
& Campbell, Ltd.


LESA FLORIDA: Torres Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS TORRES v. LESA FLORIDA CORP, a Florida corporation, and OUR
HOME APARTMENTS CORP, a Florida corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-21942-UU (S.D. Fla., May 8, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants unlawfully deprived the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated of overtime compensation during the course of
their employment in violation to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends that during weeks in which he worked more
than 40 hours, the Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay
him time-and-one-half his regular hourly rate for all hours worked
above 40. He worked for Defendants from October 1, 2019, until
April 3, 2020, and performed non-exempt work for the Defendants as
a handyman and groundskeeper.

The Defendants own, manage and/or operate residential and/or
commercial properties within Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          Melissa Scott, Esq.
          Jake Blumstein, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          805 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 301
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com


LIBERTY OILFIELD: Faces Cobb & Joseph Class Suits in Denver
------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Oilfield Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has been
named as a defendant in putative class action suits initiated by
Marshall Cobb and Marc Joseph.

On March 11, 2020, Marshall Cobb, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the state District Court of Denver County, Colorado
against the Company and certain officers and board members of the
Company along with other defendants in connection with the Initial
Public Offering (IPO).

The Cobb Complaint alleges that the Company and certain officers
and board members of the Company violated Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of inaccurate or misleading
statements allegedly contained in the registration statement filed
in connection with the IPO and requests unspecified damages and
costs. The Cobb Plaintiffs also allege control person liability
claims under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against
certain officers and board members of the Company and other
defendants.

On April 3, 2020, Marc Joseph, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court in Denver, Colorado against the
Company and certain officers and board members of the Company along
with other defendants in connection with the Initial Public
Offering (IPO) and requests unspecified damages and costs (the
"Joseph Complaint," and collectively with the Cobb Complaint, the
"Securities Lawsuits").

The Joseph Complaint, which is based on similar factual allegations
made in the Cobb Complaint, alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of
inaccurate or misleading statements allegedly contained in the
registration statement and prospectus filed in connection with the
IPO.
The Joseph Complaint also alleges control person liability claims
under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against certain
officers and board members of the Company and other defendants.

The Company has hired counsel and plans to vigorously defend
against the allegations in the Securities Lawsuits.

Liberty Oilfield Services Inc. is an independent provider of
hydraulic fracturing services and goods to onshore oil and natural
gas exploration and production ("E&P") companies in North America.
The company had grown from one active hydraulic fracturing fleet in
December 2011 to 24 active fleets in the first quarter of 2020,
including the addition of one fleet in January 2020. The company
provides its services primarily in the Permian Basin, the Eagle
Ford Shale, the DJ Basin, the Williston Basin, the San Juan Basin,
and the Powder River Basin. The company is based in Denver,
Colorado.


LIVING THAI: Cuahua Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gaspar Mayahua Cuahua and Javier Zopiyactle Cuahua, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. LIVING THAI CORP.
(D/B/A LIVING THAI CUISINE), POLLY DOE, VANESSA DOE, and WARAKORN
SIRITIPAKUL, Case No. 1:20-cv-03713 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2020), is
brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor
Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New
York Commissioner of Labor.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that they worked, according to the
complaint. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiffs
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants
failed to pay the Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for
any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day. Furthermore,
the Defendants repeatedly failed to pay the Plaintiffs wages on a
timely basis.

The Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers and as a
dishwasher at the restaurant.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Thai Restaurant located
at 931 Amsterdam Ave., in New York City under the name "Living Thai
Cuisine."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


LOMA NEGRA: Bid to Dismiss Kohl Putative Class Action Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Loma Negra Compania Industrial Argentina Sociedad Anonima said in
its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 30, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2019, that the company's motion to dismiss the putative class
action suit initiated by  Dan Kohl, is pending.

On June 21, 2018, plaintiff Dan Kohl filed a complaint in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, pursuant
to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint also asserts claims against the underwriters of our
IPO. The complaint alleges that the company's offering materials
failed to disclose material facts and risks concerning our
prospects for future growth.

As a result of such alleged omissions, the plaintiff asserts that
the price of the company's American Depositary Receipts (ADSs) was
artificially inflated.

On March 13, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On May 10, 2019 the plaintiff filed an opposition to the
company's motion to dismiss.

On June 12, 2019 the company filed its reply to plaintiff's
opposition to the company's motion to dismiss. On October 3, 2019
an oral argument on the motion to dismiss scheduled by the Court
was held.

Loma Negra said, "As of the date of this report, we are waiting for
the Court's decision on our motion to dismiss.

Loma Negra Compania Industrial Argentina Sociedad Anonima, together
with its subsidiaries, manufactures and markets cement and its
by-products in Argentina and Paraguay. It operates through Cement,
Masonry Cement and Lime; Concrete; Railroad; Aggregates; and Others
segments. The company was founded in 1926 and is based in Buenos
Aires, Argentina. Loma Negra Compania Industrial Argentina Sociedad
Anonima is a subsidiary of Loma Negra Holding GmbH.


LOMA NEGRA: Class Action Over IEBA Notes Underway
--------------------------------------------------
Loma Negra Compania Industrial Argentina Sociedad Anonima said in
its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 30, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2019, that the court handling the suit related to IEBA Notes
has ordered the publication of notice of the class action in the
media.

On February 27, 2007, Damnificados Financieros Asociacion Civil
filed a class action as representative of the holders of the notes
issued by Inversora Electrica de Buenos Aires S.A., or IEBA, in an
aggregate principal amount of Ps.200,000,000, in 1997, or the IEBA
Notes, against several defendants (including the company, as a
former minority shareholder of IEBA).

Plaintiff seeks to extend liability to the defendants for the lack
of payment of the IEBA Notes alleging, among other things,
under-capitalization of IEBA, as issuer.

The company filed several defenses, including, without limitation,
lack of standing to sue, statute of limitations, that the company
was no longer shareholders of IEBA at the time of the issuance of
the IEBA Notes and that the IEBA Notes have been successfully
restructured through a reorganization plan duly endorsed by the
competent court with effect against all holders of the IEBA Notes
and declared fulfilled by resolution of the same court dated April
18, 2008.

On August 28, 2017, the court admitted the class action and as of
September 5, 2017, the company appealed the court's decision. The
Court rejected such appeal, thus on September 28, 2017 the company
filed a petition in error because of denial of appeal. Finally, the
petition in error was admitted.

As of August 14, 2018, the Court decided to confirm the appealed
resolution regarding the admission and certification of the class
action and order its registration in the Public Registry of
Collective Processes (Registro Público de Procesos Colectivos).

In 2019, the Court order to publish notice of the class action in
the media.

Loma Negra said, "Based on our Argentine litigation counsel's
opinion, we believe that the chances of success of the claim
against us are remote."

Loma Negra Compania Industrial Argentina Sociedad Anonima, together
with its subsidiaries, manufactures and markets cement and its
by-products in Argentina and Paraguay. It operates through Cement,
Masonry Cement and Lime; Concrete; Railroad; Aggregates; and Others
segments. The company was founded in 1926 and is based in Buenos
Aires, Argentina. Loma Negra Compania Industrial Argentina Sociedad
Anonima is a subsidiary of Loma Negra Holding GmbH.


LOMA NEGRA: SDNY Court Tosses Carmona Suit
------------------------------------------
Loma Negra Compania Industrial Argentina Sociedad Anonima said in
its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 30, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2019, that the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York has issued an opinion granting defendants'
motion to dismiss the class action suit initiated by Eugenio
Carmona.

On December 5, 2018, plaintiff, Eugenio Carmona filed a complaint
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, pursuant to Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

Like the New York State Court complaint filed by Dan Kohl,
plaintiff also alleged that the company's offering materials failed
to disclose material facts and risks concerning its prospects for
future growth and that the price of the company's American
Depositary Shares (ADSs) was artificially inflated. On February 25,
2019, the court appointed Sandor Karolyi as the lead plaintiff in
the federal action.

On April 26, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint in the federal action. The amended complaint contains new
factual allegations, as well as two new causes of action pursuant
to Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiffs brought these Exchange Act claims against Loma Negra
and two of our board members, on behalf of purchasers who bought
Loma Negra shares on the open market from November 2, 2017 to May
23, 2018. The new Exchange Act claims allege that the company's
offering materials, and certain public filings and statements
contain material misstatements and omissions concerning our
prospects for future growth.

On September 19, 2019 the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On November 1, 2019 plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the company's motion to dismiss and on December 6,
2019 the company filed a reply to their opposition.

On April 27, 2020, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued an opinion granting
defendants' motion to dismiss. The order dismissing the complaint
remains subject to appeal.

Loma Negra Compania Industrial Argentina Sociedad Anonima, together
with its subsidiaries, manufactures and markets cement and its
by-products in Argentina and Paraguay. It operates through Cement,
Masonry Cement and Lime; Concrete; Railroad; Aggregates; and Others
segments. The company was founded in 1926 and is based in Buenos
Aires, Argentina. Loma Negra Compania Industrial Argentina Sociedad
Anonima is a subsidiary of Loma Negra Holding GmbH.


LOUISIANA FARM: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Franks Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LARRY FRANKS, TODD HEBERT and CRAIG LEDET,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LOUISIANA FARM
BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, and SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, SECTION: M (4), Civil Action No. 19-10839 (E.D. La.),
Judge Barry W. Ashe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification.

The case arises out of the Plaintiffs' employment as insurance
agents with the Defendants.  The Plaintiffs bring the action,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated
individuals, against the Defendants asserting violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants are an "enterprise engaged in commerce" within the
meaning of the FLSA because they utilize common management,
supervision, operations, and control to sell and service insurance
policies under the Louisiana Farm Bureau name.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to properly pay
their wages and those of similarly-situated employees.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to
pay them one-andone-half times their regular rate of pay for hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.  The Plaintiffs also allege
that the Defendants did not properly track workers' hours and pay,
which resulted in employees not being properly paid.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of workers pursuing FLSA
claims against the Defendants consisting of: All individuals who,
through a contract or agreement with Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual
Insurance Co., Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co.,
Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co., and Southern Farm Bureau
Casualty Insurance Co., perform or performed as insurance agents
for each of them or any of them anywhere in the State of Louisiana
and who were classified on paper by each of them or any of them as
independent contractors and who work or worked in excess of 40
hours during any work-week at any time from the date that is three
years preceding the commencement of this action through the close
of the Court-ordered opt-in period and who file a consent to join
in the action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

The Plaintiffs pray for a declaratory judgment finding that the
Defendants willfully violated the FLSA, and an award of unpaid
compensation for all class members, attorney's fees, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and costs.

On Dec. 5, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for
conditional certification of the proposed FLSA class.  The
Plaintiffs argue that conditional class certification is
appropriate because there are numerous insurance agents employed in
Louisiana by the Defendants who were treated similarly and were not
paid overtime wages.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that
there are other aggrieved individuals throughout Louisiana because
they have identified only one other putative class member who wants
to opt-in, and that person was employed at the same office as the
named Plaintiffs.  The Defendants also argue that the Plaintiffs
have not shown that the putative class members are similarly
situated because determining independent contractor status and the
applicability of the outside-sales exemption will require an
individual analysis as to each putative class member, thus making
class certification improper.

Judge Ashe finds that the Plaintiffs present sufficient evidence
that there are other aggrieved co-workers in the proposed class.
Each of the named Plaintiffs submitted an affidavit in support of
the conditional certification motion.  The affidavits, which are
virtually identical, attest that there are approximately 250 to 350
other insurance agents who worked for the Defendants in the last
three years, were allegedly improperly classified as independent
contractors, and were not paid overtime wages.  These affidavits
are sufficient to establish the existence of other potential class
members.

Next, the Court finds that exemption defenses, which may be
individual to each Plaintiff, are more appropriately considered at
the second stage of the Lusardi v. Xerox Corp. inquiry.  Notably,
at the conditional certification stage, the Court does not resolve
factual disputes, decide substantive issues on the merits, or make
credibility determinations.  Therefore, at this stage, the Court
will not adjudicate the merits of the Defendants' defenses as to
any Plaintiff, and finds that there is enough evidence that the
Plaintiffs are similarly situated to the putative collective action
members to allow conditional certification.

Finally, the Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing that other
workers would want to opt in to a putative collective action.  On
Sept. 26, 2019, the counsel for the Plaintiffs filed into the
record a notice of consent to join signed by Carla LeCompte
Bergeron.  Considering the lenient standard at the notice stage of
the Lusardi inquiry, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have
adequately shown that other workers want to join the litigation and
that conditional certification of a collective action is
appropriate at this time.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Judge Ashe granted the
Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify the class.

Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216, the class is conditionally
certified as:  All individuals who, through a contract or agreement
with Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., Louisiana Farm
Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance
Co., and Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., perform or
performed as insurance agents for each of them or any of them
anywhere in the State of Louisiana and who were classified on paper
by each of them or any of them as independent contractors and who
work or worked in excess of 40 hours during any work-week at any
time from the date that is three years preceding the Court's Order
granting conditional certification through the close of the
Court-ordered opt-in period and who file a consent to join in the
action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Order &
Reasons is available at https://is.gd/DyhNgZ from Leagle.com.

Larry Franks, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Todd Hebert, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Craig Ledet, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated & Carla LeCompte Bergeron, Plaintiffs,
represented by Lawrence J. Centola, III -- lcentola@mbfirm.com --
Martzell & Bickford, Damon Joseph Baldone, Damon J. Baldone &
Associates, Jason Zachary Landry -- jzl@mbfirm.com -- Martzell &
Bickford & Jeremy James Landry, Martzell & Bickford.

Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Louisiana Farm
Bureau Casualty Insurance Company & Southern Farm Bureau Casualty
Insurance Company, Defendants, represented by James K. Ordeneaux --
jordeneaux@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP, Andrew
Lane Plauche, Jr. -- aplauche@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli,
Parkerson, LLP, George Cameron Drennan -- gdrennan@pmpllp.com --
Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP, Lauren Nicole Baudot --
lbaudot@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP & Matthew
Turney Habig -- mhabig@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson,
LLP.

Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented
by Mark N. Mallery, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,
Cathleen Bell Bremmer, Carlton Fields, PA, pro hac vice, Irma
Reboso Solares, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA, pro hac vice,
Markham R. Leventhal, Carlton Fields, PA, pro hac vice & Stephanie
Ann Fichera, Carlton Fields, P.A., pro hac vice.


LOUISIANA: DOC Faces Class Action Over Covid-19 Inmates at Angola
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Foster, writing for WAFB, reports that two advocacy groups
filed a class action lawsuit mid-April to asking a judge to force
the Louisiana Department of Corrections (DOC) to stop isolating
Covid-19 positive inmates at Camp J.

The DOC is housing detainees who test positive for COVID-19 across
the state at Camp J, a former solitary confinement wing at
Louisiana State Penitentiary (Angola) that was shuttered in 2018
due to safety concerns.  It's an isolated building about a mile
away from the closest facility housing non-positive inmates.

The lawsuit claims that

   * At Camp J, there is no physical isolation from the other
     patients.

   * Patients at Camp J lack of access to medical treatment.

   * There are only two available ambulances at Camp J

   * DOC only relies on nearby hospitals in West Feliciana Parish
     for severe cases.

   * The hospitals that are equipped to handle COVID-19 patients
     are at least an hour away in Baton Rouge and New Orleans.

Mercedes Montagnes, Executive Director of the Promise of Justice
Initiative, one of the groups that filed the lawsuit, questioned
the logic behind moving sick prisoners from around the state to a
single location.

She claims Camp J has "no ventilators, no doctors, and [is] a long
way from adequate hospitals."

Lisa Graybill, Deputy Legal Director for the Southern Poverty Law
Firm, the other group that filed the lawsuit, said DOC seemed "far
too willing" to ignore its responsibility to protect detainees.

DOC officials previously claimed they're only taking infected
detainees from facilities that don't have the resources to isolate
or treat them.

The agency claims that means a majority of detainees won't need to
be moved to Camp J.

The detainees who are brought to Camp J must not show "severe"
symptoms from the infection, according to DOC officials.

Detainees showing severe symptoms will be taken to an outside
hospital instead, DOC officials said.

DOC also announced it is compiling a list of detainees jailed for a
non-violent and non-sex crime who are within six months of their
release date.  Those detainees may be eligible for a medical
furlough to help DOC lower its population of detainees.  [GN]


LOYOLA MARYMOUNT: Shoham Sues to Seek Fees and Tuition Refunds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gaia Shoham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:20-cv-04329
(C.D. Cal., May 13, 2020), seeks refunds of the amount the
Plaintiff and other members of the Classes are owed on a pro-rata
basis, together with other damages, as a result of the Defendant's
decision to close campus, constructively evict students, and
transition all classes to an online/remote format as a result of
the Novel Coronavirus Disease pandemic.

While closing campus and transitioning to online classes was the
right thing for the Defendant to do, this decision deprived the
Plaintiff and the other members of the Classes from recognizing the
benefits of in-person instruction, access to campus facilities,
student activities, and other benefits and services in exchange for
which they had already paid fees and tuition, the Plaintiff
contends.

The Defendant has either refused to provide reimbursement for the
tuition, fees and other costs that the Defendant is no longer
providing, or has provided inadequate and/or arbitrary
reimbursement that does not fully compensate the Plaintiff and
members of the Classes for their loss, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is currently enrolled as a full-time student in the
Defendant's undergraduate program, studying communication studies
and theater.

Loyola Marymount University is an institution of higher learning
located in Los Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Bohren
          BOHREN LAW
          501 W. Broadway Suite 800
          San Diego CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 433-2803
          Email: yanni@bohrenlaw.com

               - and -

          Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
          Roy T. Willey IV, Esq.
          ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Phone: (843) 614-8888
          Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com
                 roy@akimlawfirm.com


MAGNA INTERNATIONAL: Breached Fiduciary Duties, Davis et al. Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MELVIN DAVIS, WAYNE ANDERSON, SHAWNETTA JORDAN and DAKOTA
KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated
v. MAGNA INTERNATIONAL OF AMERICA, INC.; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
MAGNA INTERNATIONAL OF AMERICA, INC.; MAGNA INTERNATIONAL OF
AMERICA, INC. INVESTMENT COMMITTEE AND THE UNITED STATES PENSION
AND RETIREMENT SAVINGS COMMITTEE; and JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants,
Case No. 2:20-cv-11060-NGE-RSW (E.D. Mich., April 30, 2020), arises
from the Defendants' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties
pursuant to Sections 409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated participants and beneficiaries of the Magna
Group of Companies Retirement Savings Plan from April 30, 2014
through the date of judgment, allege that the Defendants breached
the duties they owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the
Class members by failing to objectively and adequately review the
Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each
investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and maintaining
certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or
similar investment options with lower costs and/or better
performance histories as required by the Plan's investment policy.
The Plaintiffs also claim that the Defendants failed to utilize the
lowest cost share class for many of the mutual funds within the
Plan, and failed to negotiate reasonable expenses for collective
trusts or commingled accounts and separate accounts within the
Plan.

Magna International of America, Inc. is a global automotive
supplier dedicated to delivering new mobility solutions and
technology, with principal place of business at 600 Wilshire Drive,
Troy, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
         Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
         312 Old Lancaster Road
         Merion Station, PA 19066
         CAPOZZI ADLER PC
         Telephone: (610) 890-0200
         Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
         E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com

               - and –

         Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
         CAPOZZI ADLER PC
         2933 North Front Street
         Harrisburg, PA 17110
         Telephone: (717) 233-4101
         Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
         E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com

               - and –
         
         Anthony L. DeLuca, Esq.
         ANTHONY L. DELUCA PLC
         14950 East Jefferson Avenue, Suite 170
         Gross Pointe Park, MI 48230
         Telephone: (313) 821-5905
         Facsimile: (313) 821-5906
         E-mail: anthony@aldplc.com

MATSU CORP: Court Rules on Conditional Certification in Zhu Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification in the case captioned GUI ZHEN ZHU, and
RONG JIAO YIN, on their own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. MATSU CORP d/b/a Matsu; and MATSU
GRILL CO. LLC, d/b/a Matsuri and; KIMMING MARTY CHENG, and ZIQIAO
CAO a/k/a Michael Cao, Defendants. No. 3:18-cv-203 (CSH). (D.
Conn.)

The Defendants are owners of Matsu and Matsuri, two restaurants in
Westport and Darien, Connecticut.

In February 2018, Plaintiffs Gui Zhen Zhu (Zhu) and Rong Jiao Yin
(Yin) commenced the action on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated against Defendants Matsu Corp., d/b/a Matsu;
Matsu Grill Co. LLC, d/b/a Matsuri; Kimming Marty Cheng and Ziqiao
Cao, a/k/a Michael Cao (Defendants) for alleged violations of the
minimum wage and overtime pay provisions of the Federal Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act (CMWA).

Zhu worked as a packer at the Matsu restaurant and Yin worked as a
waitress for the Defendants in 2014-2105.

Plaintiffs allege that the two restaurants owned by Defendants -
Matsu and Matsuri - constituted "joint employers" of Plaintiffs, as
the two restaurants shared employees requiring them to do work for
both restaurants.

Plaintiffs move to conditionally certify a collective action in the
lawsuit pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA. They submit a
proposed Notice of Pendency and Consent to Sue Form for the Court's
approval. In support of their motion for conditional certification,
Plaintiffs include affidavits by Zhu and Yin containing the factual
accounts.

Upon deliberation, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification.  The Court
specifies that:

   (1) The Court ORDERS CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION of this case as
an FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION on behalf of all current and former
non-exempt employees employed by Defendants at any time from
February 2, 2015 to the date of the Order.

   (2) To participate in the action, current and former employees
of Defendants must opt in to the action in a manner consistent with
the Ruling.

   (3) Defendants are ORDERED, without delay, to produce a list of
the names, addresses, compensation rates, telephone numbers, and
dates of employment of all non-exempt employees employed by the
Defendants from February 2, 2015 to the date of the Order in an
Excel format.

   (4) Plaintiffs and Defendants are ORDERED to meet and confer on
newly-revised Notice of Pendency and Consent Form that incorporate
the Court's rulings. The parties are also directed to attempt to
agree, in mutual good faith, on conspicuous locations within
Defendants' restaurants that are suitable for the posting of Notice
of Pendency and Consent Form, failing which the Court will
determine the locations.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Ruling is available at
https://tinyurl.com/t3srzmf from Leagle.com

Gui Zhen Zu, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated &
Rong Jiao Yin, Plaintiffs, represented by John Troy , Troy Law,
PLLC, 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355

Matsu Corp., doing business as Matsu, Matsu Grill Co. LLC, doing
business as Matsuri, Kimming Marty Cheng & Ziquiao Cao, also known
as Michael Cao, Defendants, represented by Anne Casey LeVasseur ,
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, 150 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017


MDL 2047: Court Grants Art Edge's Bid to Compel Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, SECTION L (5), THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL CASES,
Civil Action MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La.), Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (1)
denied the Bryson Group's Motion for Allocation of Disputed
Attorney Fees; (2) denied Collins & Horsley, P.C.'s Motion
Requesting the Court to Order the Clerk to Remit Payment of All
Fees; (3) granted Art Edge, P.C.'s Motion to Compel Arbitration and
Stay Proceedings; and (4) denied as premature without prejudice Law
Offices of Joseph Buffington, LLP's Motion for Allocation of the
Disputed Attorneys' Fee Fund.

The matter arises from a fee dispute between two groups of law
firms involved in In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 09-2047.

In October 2019, the Court was contacted by Brown Greer, the Claims
Administrator for the Knauf Settlement.  Brown Greer represented
that although the distribution of attorney fees related to the
Knauf Settlement was almost complete, there remained a sum of money
to which the intended recipients could not agree upon proper
distribution.  

Accordingly, the Court ordered that the sum of $6,866,796.33 be
deposited into the registry of the Court.  On Oct. 31, 2019, the
Court ordered any party with an interest in these funds to file a
motion asserting a claim thereto and addressing the proper
allocation thereof by Dec. 2, 2019.

In their respective filings, the parties explain the background of
the fee dispute.  Apparently, in 2009, the Bryson Group and the
Collins Group entered into a Co-Counsel Agreement related to the
Chinese drywall litigation.  Under the terms of the Agreement, the
Bryson Group agreed to jointly represent the Collins Group's
clients in the MDL.

Specifically, the Bryson Group agreed to (1) assist in the filing
of all cases that the Collins Group seeks to file in the MDL; (2)
assist the Collins Group in joining MDL committees; (3) consult
with the Collins Group on an as requested basis during the pendency
of the agreement and upon request, at least once per quarter travel
to Birmingham to consult with the Collins Group; and (4) keep the
other party informed about work projects and additional case
acquisition.

The Agreement also contained a Dispute Resolution clause, requiring
the parties, in the event of a dispute arising from the Agreement,
to submit the matter to arbitration.  A separate, verbal referral
agreement regarding Chinese drywall cases was reached between
William Brian Collins (a member of the Collins Group) and the Law
Offices of Joseph Buffington.  The Bryson Group, the Collins Group,
and the Law Offices of Joseph Buffington all have competing claims
to at least a portion of the $6,866,796.33 in the registry of the
Court.

The Bryson Group filed a Motion for Allocation of the Disputed
Attorneys' Fee Fund.  In its motion, the Bryson Group explains that
under the Co-Counsel Agreement, the Bryson Group agreed to jointly
represent certain plaintiffs who retained the Collins Group in
exchange for 25% of any attorney fees awarded to those clients.
The Bryson and Collins Groups jointly represented 174 Plaintiffs in
the Chinese Drywall MDL, and Brown Greer calculated the total
recovery for these Plaintiffs to be $28,000,240.12.  The Bryson
Group explains that the attorney fee related to the recovery for
these 174 Plaintiffs is $4,055,762.14, and that the Bryson Group is
accordingly entitled to 25% of that sum, or $1,013,940.54.  The
Bryson Group seeks immediate remittance of the amount.

Art Edge, PC opposes payment of the sum to the Bryson Group.  Art
Edge, a member of the Collins Group, alleges that the Bryson Group
has not fulfilled its obligations under the Co-Counsel Agreement
and accordingly is not entitled to recover the 25% fee specified in
the Agreement.  Lastly, Art Edge explains that the majority of the
Bryon Group's work was performed by paralegals.  Accordingly, Art
Edge contends Bryson should not be compensated 25% of the fees
filed through his office simply because an agreement was signed
that he did not fulfill.

William Brian Collins, on behalf of Collins & Horsley, filed a
motion requesting the payment of the entire sum held in the
registry of the Court.  Collins explains that although it was
awarded approximately $7 million for the work it performed in the
MDL, BrownGreer withheld those fees despite the absence of any
formal or articulated assertion that those fees were not due to be
paid to Collins & Horsley.  The fees allegedly withheld from
Collins & Horsley are precisely the funds at issue in the entire
dispute.  Collins & Horsley argues that the entire $6,866,796.32
fee should be remitted so that the firm can thereafter honor its
obligations under various private referral agreements, presumably
including the Co-Counsel Agreement at issue.  It contends there is
no matter before the Court that should be considered or allowed to
interfere with Collins & Horsley's right to immediate payment of
fees it earned, in the same manner as all other firms that
represented clients in the litigation.

Art Edge opposes payment of the sum to Collins & Horsley.  Art Edge
explains that two members of the Collins Group, namely Art Edge and
the Collins Law Office, are involved in a secondary fee dispute
that involves more than just Chinese drywall fees and includes fees
from other cases over the course of the fee sharing agreement.
Because the Agreement contained an arbitration provision, Art Edge
argues the dispute should be resolved through arbitration rather
than by the Court.

The Bryson Group also opposes payment of the entire sum to Collins
& Horsley.  The Bryson Group argues that its portion of the
attorney fees should be deposited directly into the Whitfield
Bryson & Mason Trust Account, for fear that the contentious dispute
between Art Edge and Collins will result in the Bryson Group's
funds somehow being held hostage by motion practice and lawsuits
between these feuding lawyers.

Joseph Buffington argues he has a fee interest in 38 cases Chinese
drywall cases.  Buffington alleges he acted as co-counsel with
Brian Collins of Collins & Downey (eventually Collins & Horsley) in
19 of those 38 cases, and co-counsel with the Collins & Downey and
Whitfield, Bryson, & Mason in another 19.  Buffington requests 5%
of the $555,930.75 awarded, or $27,796.53.  However, Buffington
agrees to withdraw the request if Collins opposes it, recognizing
that "initially, he was not going to receive any fees from these
cases.

In response to the Bryson Group's motion for distribution of
attorney fees, Art Edge filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and
Stay Proceedings. Art Edge contends the Court lacks jurisdiction
over the fee dispute because the parties agreed to resolve any
disputes arising from the Co-Counsel Agreement through arbitration.
The Bryson Group opposes the motion, contending that the Court has
jurisdiction over the fee dispute because the disputed funds are in
the registry of the Court and because courts have ancillary
jurisdiction over controversies related to property or assets in
the court's possession.

Because Art Edge's Motion to Compel arbitration invokes the Court's
jurisdiction, Judge Fallon addresses it first.  The Judge finds
that the Agreement's "Dispute Resolution" provisions specifically
states that iIn the event of a dispute arising from the agreement,
the Law Firms agree to submit the matter to confidential and
binding arbitration utilizing rules promulgated by the American
Arbitration Association.  Based on the plain language of the
agreement, the Judge concludes, and the parties do not appear to
dispute, that they agreed to arbitrate.  Accordingly, compelling
arbitration of the instant dispute is consistent with federal
policy and not in conflict with Rule 23.

Although Judge Fallon concludes that the dispute between the
Collins Group and the Bryson Group is subject to arbitration, the
same cannot be said of the dispute between the Collins firm and the
Law Offices of Joseph Buffington.  The agreement between these two
firms was not reduced to writing and there has been no allegation
by either party that they intended to arbitrate the dispute.
Without privity or another exception not applicable in the case,
the Court cannot compel Mr. Buffington to arbitrate his dispute
with the Collins firm.  Nevertheless, the Court finds that the
outcome of Mr. Buffington's motion inherently depends on the value
of attorney fees awarded to the Collins Group by the arbitrator.
Accordingly, the Court will deny Mr. Buffington's motion as
premature without prejudice to his right to pursue his claim
against the Collins firm pending the outcome of the arbitration.

Considering the foregoing, Judge Fallon grants Art Edge's Motion to
Compel Arbitration.  All issues involving the fee dispute between
the Collins Group and the Bryson Group arising from the Co-Counsel
Agreement will proceed to arbitration pursuant to the terms of the
Co-Counsel Agreement.  The matter is stayed only with respect to
the instant dispute between the Bryson Group and the Collins Group.
The Court retains jurisdiction for the entry and enforcement of
such arbitration award that may be rendered by the arbitration
forum.

Judge Fallon denies (i) the Bryson Group's Motion for Allocation of
the Disputed Attorneys' Fee Fund, R. Doc. 22400, and (ii) Collins &
Horsley's Motion Requesting the Court to Order the Clerk to Remit
Payment of All Fees to Collins & Horsley, P.C..

Judge Fallon denied as premature the Law Offices of Joseph
Buffington, LLP's Motion for Allocation of Disputed Attorneys' Fee
Fund, without prejudice to his right to pursue his claim against
the Collins firm pending the outcome of the arbitration.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 18, 2020 Order &
Reasons is available at https://is.gd/6EeELl from Leagle.com.

Lynn C. Greer, Special Master, pro se.

J. Cal Mayo, Jr., Special Master, pro se.

Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Russ M. Herman --
rherman@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC & Leonard A.
Davis -- ldavis@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC.
Homebuilders and Installers Steering Committee, Defendant,
represented by Phillip A. Wittmann -- pwittmann@stonepigman.com --
Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC.

Insurer Steering Committee, Defendant, represented by Judy Y.
Barrasso, Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC, 909
Poydras Street, Suite 2350, New Orleans, LA 70112
Defendant, Defendant, represented by Kerry James Miller, Fishman
Haygood, LLP, 201 Saint Charles Avenue, Suite 4600, New Orleans,
LA
70170-4600  & Andrew J. Brien -- brien@carverdarden.com -- Carver,
Darden, Koretzky, Tessier, Finn, Blossman & Areaux.

Defendant, Liaison Counsel for Taishan, BNMB entities, and CNBM
entities, Defendant, represented by Harry Rosenberg --
harry.rosenberg@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP.


MDL 2672: Bid to Disqualify Judge in VW Clean Diesel Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
denied the Plaintiffs' motion to disqualify Judge Charles R. Breyer
in IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates To: Dkt. No.
7186, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs moved to disqualify Judge Breyer under 28 U.S.C.
Sections 144 and 455.

The Court takes their concerns seriously and has carefully
evaluated the request for disqualification. However, it is clear
that the rulings and statements Plaintiffs complain of do not
constitute the rare circumstances that would justify recusal, the
Court opines.  And because the affidavit supporting the motion is
both legally insufficient and interposed for delay, the Court will
not refer the motion to the Clerk for reassignment to another
judge.

The underlying case is a multidistrict litigation that alleged the
sale of thousands of 'clean diesel' vehicles by Volkswagen that
were marketed as being environmentally friendly, fuel efficient,
and high performing when in reality, these vehicles emit nitrogen
oxides at a factor of up to 40 times over the permitted limit.  The
bulk of the civil actions were resolved in two settlements (one
concerning 2.0-liter TDI vehicles and another for 3.0-liter TDI
vehicles) approved by the California District Court.

The Plaintiffs in the current case are opt-outs from the Class
Settlements.  They each brought California common law and statutory
claims. Volkswagen moved for summary judgment on just the statutory
claims.

Under the Motion to Disqualify, the Plaintiffs argue that the
Court's intimate involvement in fashioning the Class Settlement
raises the appearance of bias in two ways.  First, because the
Court will determine whether the Class Settlements constituted an
appropriate correction offer under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA).  Second, because various statements and rulings of the
Court ostensibly indicate that the Court already favors
Volkswagen's case, and harbors significant antagonism toward the
Plaintiffs' case.

The Court opines that having presided over the Class Settlements
will aid rather than hinder the evaluation of their sufficiency
under the CLRA.

The Court further opines that the Plaintiffs' contention that
various other rulings and statements demonstrate that having
presided over the Class Settlements predisposed the Court to favor
Volkswagen -- are inadequate to demonstrate bias.  The Plaintiffs
fail to demonstrate that the case involves the rare circumstances
in which judicial rulings evidence the degree of favoritism or
antagonism required to justify disqualification, the Court says.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 21, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/DaIICA from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rcarey@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com
-- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G.
Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Nicholas Allen, Daniel Carroll, Giancarlo Ceci, Dominic Troffer,
Paul Linnee, Sarah Hayden, Dario Medina, Shanice Boyette, Isaac
Hoover, John Mazur & Forrest Tinsler, Plaintiffs, represented by
Caleb Marker -- caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP,
pro hac vice & Charles S. Zimmerman -- csz@zimmreed.com --
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, pro hac vice.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague, Lightfoot Franklin &
White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com
-- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker --
chtucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable,
Dana Woodrum Lang, Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M.
Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Baker, Sterchi, Cowden &
Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com --
Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer,
Conrad and Scherer, LLP633 South Federal Highway, Eighth Floor,
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.


MDL 2672: Guide for Phase One Trial in VW Clean Diesel Suit Entered
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California has entered an order on jury instructions
and stipulated facts, providing guidance for Phase One of the
upcoming trial, in the case IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL"
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This
Order Relates To: Bellwether Trial, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D.
Cal.).  

Judge Breyer agrees with the Plaintiffs and Volkswagen that
California Civil Jury Instruction No. 1923 provides the proper
measure of economic damages for the first phase of the trial.  
While the parties (and the Court) agree on the appropriate model
jury instruction, they dispute the meaning of that instruction.

CACI No. 1923 provides that a plaintiff's out-of-pocket damages are
the fair market value of what the plaintiff gave less the fair
market value of what the plaintiff received.  Fair market value is
the highest price that a willing buyer would have paid on the date
of the transaction to a willing seller if there was no pressure on
either one to buy or sell and the buyer and the seller knew all the
uses and purposes for which the car was reasonably capable of being
used.

According to the Plaintiffs, it means that the fair market value is
the amount each of them would have paid for their cars on the
original date of sale, had they known that those cars contained a
defeat device.  This position is belied by caselaw, the ordinary
meaning of "fair market value," and the plain language of the model
instructions.

Another court in the Circuit has recently considered, and rejected
the Plaintiffs' interpretation of California's out-of-pocket
measure of damages.  Judge Birotte's analysis begins by noting that
the rule is now well established that, in the typical case
involving a fraudulent vendor and a defrauded vendee the "exclusive
measure of damages" is the difference between the actual value of
that with which the defrauded person parted and the actual value of
that which he received.  Turning to California caselaw, Judge
Birotte determined that "actual value" means "market value."  He
therefore concluded that actual value' does not mean the
Plaintiffs' subjective valuation of the vehicle and so the
Plaintiffs' own opinion as to the value of the vehicle could not
establish their out-of-pocket damages.

Judge Breyer is persuaded by Judge Birotte's reasoning and adopts
it.  As he noted, California caselaw and CACI No. 1923 establish
that the proper measure of damages is the amount Plaintiffs paid
for their cars, less the actual fair market value of those cars at
the time of sale.  "Fair market value" is an objective measure.  It
asks what price a typical, willing, and informed buyer and seller
would arrive at in an arm's-length transaction, not how much a
particular individual would have paid if that person had been fully
informed.

The language Plaintiffs cite from CACI No. 1923 confirms this
conclusion.  That model instruction defines fair market value as
"the highest price that a willing buyer would have paid on the date
of the transaction to a willing seller, assuming:" no pressure and
full knowledge on both sides of the transaction. CACI No. 1923. The
instruction speaks in terms of a generic buyer, paying the price
determined by the market as a whole. Plaintiffs' reading would
substitute the words "this Plaintiff" for "a willing buyer," but
neither the language of the statute nor any case cited by the
parties justifies that alteration.1 Ultimately, Plaintiffs'
position amounts to an unjustifiable effort to seek rescission in
the guise of out-of-pocket damages.

The Plaintiffs rely heavily on Schroeder v. Auto Driveaway Co., but
that case does not support their position.  Schroeder does not help
Plaintiffs because it is distinguishable.  The main measure of
damages in Schroeder was the difference between the value of the
goods stored in the van and the salvage value.  Schroeder even
distinguished a case that had applied the out-of-pocket measure of
damages applicable in the instant case.  The disputed issue -- how
to measure the fair market value of goods at the time of the
original sale -- was not relevant in Schroeder.

To the extent Schroeder is analogous to the case, it supports
Volkswagen's preferred approach, not the Plaintiffs'.  Mrs.
Schroeder's testimony established the original value of her
possessions in part by estimating the amount she paid for them.
That is exactly what the Plaintiffs will be allowed to do.  During
Phase One, the Plaintiffs may testify to the amount they paid for
their TDI vehicles.  But they may not testify to the amount they
would have paid for their vehicles if they had known about the
defeat device at the time of the original sale.

The parties also dispute how best to apprise the jury of certain
stipulated facts.  Judge Breyer has determined that the most fair
and expeditious way to present these facts is for the Plaintiffs'
counsel to read aloud stipulated facts 1-15 from the Joint Proposed
Pretrial Order during their Phase One case-in-chief.  No other
presentation of the stipulated facts is necessary or allowed during
the phase of the trial.

A full-text copy of Judge Breyer's Feb. 21, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/DJW6gD from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rcarey@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com
-- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G.
Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Nicholas Allen, Daniel Carroll, Giancarlo Ceci, Dominic Troffer,
Paul Linnee, Sarah Hayden, Dario Medina, Shanice Boyette, Isaac
Hoover, John Mazur & Forrest Tinsler, Plaintiffs, represented by
Caleb Marker -- caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP,
pro hac vice & Charles S. Zimmerman -- csz@zimmreed.com --
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, pro hac vice.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague, Lightfoot Franklin &
White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com
-- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker --
chtucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable,
Dana Woodrum Lang, Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M.
Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Baker, Sterchi, Cowden &
Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com --
Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer,
Conrad and Scherer, LLP633 South Federal Highway, Eighth Floor,
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.


MDL 2944: Hyde-Edwards Seeks Consolidation of 10 Cases in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the litigation titled In re: JPMorgan Chase Paycheck Protection
Program Litigation, MDL No. 2944, Plaintiff Hyde-Edwards Salon &
Spa in the Southern District of California action moves the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for an order
transferring 10 actions, as well as any tag-along actions or other
cases that may be filed asserting related or similar claims, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California for
centralization of the actions for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

The 10 actions are:

   * Cyber Defense Group, LLC, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase and Co.,
     et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03589 (C.D. Cal.) (Motion);

   * Outlet Tile Center v. JPMorgan Chase and Co., et al.,
     Case No. 2:20-cv-03603 (C.D. Cal.) (Motion);

   * Legendary Transport, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al.,
     Case No. 2:20-cv-03636 (C.D. Cal.) (Motion);

   * American Video Duplicating Inc., et al. v. Citigroup Inc.,
     et al. , Case No. 2:20-cv-03815 (C.D. Cal.) (Motion);

   * Hyde-Edwards Salon & Spa v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al.,
     Case No. 3:20-cv-00762 (S.D. Cal.) (Motion);

   * Ladaga Ventures LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
     Case No. 1:20-cv-01204 (D. Colo.) (Motion);

   * Sha-Poppin Gourmet Popcorn LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A,
     et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02523 (N.D. Ill.) (Motion);

   * Shiny Strands v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
     Case No. 1:20-cv-02547 (N.D. Ill.) (Motion);

   * Ryan M. Kull Licensed Clinical Social Work LLC v. JP Morgan
     Chase & Co., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03138 (S.D.N.Y.)
     (Motion); and

   * Starwalk of Dallas LLC, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
     Case No. 3:20-cv-01005 (N.D. Tex.) (Motion).[BN]

Plaintiff Hyde-Edwards Salon & Spa is represented by:

          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  rapeterson@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 340
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (619) 489-0300
          E-mail: bgaldston@bm.net

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Alex R. Straus, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 South Gay Street, Suite 100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  alex@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
          900 West Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com
                  scott@whitfieldbryson.com
                  pat@whitfieldbryson.com


MEAT HEAD: Underpays Laborers, Boyd Claims
------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BOYD, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MEAT HEAD BROTHERS CORPORATION and SEAN O'BRYAN,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-50156 (N.D. Ill., May 1, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a laborer.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
laborers regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. But,
because Defendant had a straight-time for overtime policy and/or
practice of not paying their employees the proper rate for overtime
they worked, Plaintiff and Members of the Class were deprived of
their rightful overtime compensation at one and one-half times of
their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek.

Sean O'Bryan is the owner and principal of Meat Head Brothers and
directly affected employment-related factors such as workplace
conditions and/or operation, personnel, and/or compensation.

Meat Head Brothers Corporation is an industrial demolition and
recycling company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erin L. Beavers, Esq.
          THE GORI LAW FIRM, P.C.
          156 N. Main St.
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Tel: (618)659-9833
          Fax: (618)659-9834
          Email: erin@gorilaw.com

                - and –

          Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
          Katie R. Caminati, Esq.
          BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
          5555 San Felipe St., Suite 900
          Houston, TX 77056
          Tel: 713-425-7100
          Fax: 713-425-7101
          Emails: rcowan@bchlaw.com
                  kcaminati@bchlaw.com


MICHIGAN: Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment Bid in Doe Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD SNYDER, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 16-13137 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Robert H.
Cleland of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, granted (i) the Plaintiffs' motion for
declaratory and injunctive relief; and (ii) the Plaintiffs' motion
for partial summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs bring constitutional challenges to Michigan's Sex
Offender Registration Act ("SORA") on behalf of a certified class
comprised of multiple subclasses.  

Although the case was filed in 2016, the constitutional challenges
to SORA brought in the instant action were first pursued by five
John Doe plaintiffs four years earlier -- Does v. Snyder, No.
12-11194 (E.D. Mich. 2012) ("Does I").  In the Does I case, the
Court summarized the legislative history of SORA and issued a
series of opinions resolving the parties' various dispositive
motions.

The Court's pertinent rulings in the Does I case are summarized as:
(1) SORA is a regulatory statute, not criminal statute, and the
retroactive application of the 2011 amendments to SORA does not
violate the ex post facto clause; (2) SORA's retroactive
application of lifetime reporting requirements does not violate the
due process clause; (3) certain sections of SORA are
unconstitutionally vague in violation of the due process clause;
(4) SORA violates the due process clause by imposing strict
liability for violations, and the statute must be read as imputing
a knowledge requirement; and (5) certain sections of SORA violate
the First Amendment.

Both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants appealed the trial court's
rulings.  The Sixth Circuit's decision focused on only Plaintiffs'
ex post facto claim.  The Circuit held that SORA imposes punishment
and that the retroactive application of SORA's 2006 and 2011
amendments is unconstitutional.  The decision effectively vacated
the listed first and second rulings of the Court but arguably
relegated to dicta the remainder of the Court's rulings.  The Sixth
Circuit remanded Does I for the entry of judgment consistent with
its decision, and the Supreme Court denied the Defendants' petition
for certiorari.

On remand, the Court entered a stipulated final judgment that
declared the "retroactive application of Michigan's Sex Offenders
Registration Act's (SORA) 2006 and 2011 amendments violates the Ex
Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  The Court also
enjoined the Defendants from enforcing the 2006 and 2011 amendments
against the Plaintiffs.

Days after the Sixth Circuit's decision in Does I, six John Doe
Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint before the Court
challenging the constitutionality of SORA -- John Doe et al. v.
Snyder, No. 16-13137 (E.D. Mich.) ("Does II").  The claims in Does
II are, at their core, the same constitutional challenges raised by
the individual Plaintiffs in Does I.  The Does II second amended
complaint contains four claims: (1) a due process challenge based
on vagueness to the following provisions SORA; (2) a due process
challenge based on SORA's imposition of a strict liability scheme
for violations of the act; (3) a First Amendment challenge; and (4)
an ex post facto challenge based on Defendants' continued
enforcement of the 2006 and 2011 amendments.

In September 2018, the Court entered a stipulated order certifying
the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).  The
certified class is comprised of a primary class and two subclasses.
The Plaintiffs define the primary class as all people who are or
will be subject to registration under SORA.  The primary class
seeks relief on Count I (vagueness); Count II (strict liability)
and Count III (First Amendment).  

The subclasses seek relief on Count IV (ex post facto) and are
defined as follows:

     (1) The pre-2006 ex post facto subclass is defined as members
         of the primary class who committed their offense or
         offenses requiring registration before Jan. 1, 2006, and
         who have committed no registrable offense since.

     (2) The 2006-2011 ex post facto subclass is defined as
         members of the primary class who committed their offense
         or offenses requiring registration on or after Jan. 1,
         2006, but before April 12, 2011, and who have committed
         no registrable offense since.

In July 2018, the Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on
the ex post facto claim on behalf of the subclasses.  In May 2019,
the Court entered a stipulated order granting declaratory relief
for the Plaintiffs, holding that the 2006 and 2011 amendments were
unconstitutional as applied to the ex post facto subclasses.  

In September 2019, Plaintiffs filed a refreshed motion for partial
summary judgment addressing the severability of the amendments to
SORA and injunctive relief for their ex post fact claim.  Several
months passed, and the Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
summary judgment on behalf of the primary class related to their
remaining constitutional claims (vagueness, First Amendment, strict
liability).  Both motions have now been fully briefed.

The Defendants' briefs point to and rely upon an appeal in a
criminal case now before the Michigan Supreme Court, People v.
Betts.  Betts involves a criminal defendant who challenges his
conviction for failing to register under SORA.  Defendant/Appellant
Betts was convicted in 1994 for the crime subjecting him to SORA
registration.

The Plaintiffs move for declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf
of the ex post facto subclasses on their ex post facto claim and
move for partial summary judgment on behalf of the primary class on
their remaining constitutional claims.  

Judge Cleland begins by addressing the claim pursued by the ex post
facto subclasses and then turns to the remaining claims brought on
behalf of the primary class. Finally, Judge Cleland addresses the
issue of the Defendants' obligation to provide notice of the
decision to the class members, law enforcement, and prosecutors.

Judge Cleland holds that for several years, registrants have been
forced to comply with unconstitutional provisions of SORA.  The
parties, and the Court, expected that the Sixth Circuit's ruling
would spur legislative action, and for some time, it appeared that
the legislature was poised to pass a new and comprehensive statute,
obviating the need for the Opinion.  Unfortunately, the legislature
was not able to finalize a new registration statute.  Faced with
the continued violation of their rights, the Plaintiffs returned to
the Court to remedy the Defendants' ongoing violations.  The
Court's duty is to invalidate those portions of SORA that violate
the Constitution.  In so doing, the Court recognizes that its
ruling will fracture the existing structure of SORA.  However, it
anticipates that its ruling will reignite efforts to finalize a
new, unified registration statute that can survive constitutional
review, as has the national model, SORNA.

But until such time as the legislature acts, SORA will be
unenforceable against a large portion of registrants and may be
enforced only in part against the remaining registrants.

For the reasons he explained, Judge Cleland will grant the
Plaintiffs' pending motions and will enter permanent injunctive
relief on behalf of the ex post facto subclasses and the primary
class.  Upon the entry of final judgment in the case, the
Defendants will be permanently enjoined from enforcing any
provision of SORA against members of the ex post facto subclasses
and will be permanently enjoined from enforcing the provisions
described in Part III.B of the Opinion against any registrant.  The
parties will immediately begin efforts to formulate a joint,
proposed form of judgment, which will become effective 60 days
after entry.  

Additionally, the parties will promptly begin to prepare documents
sufficient to provide notice of the Opinion, and its impact, to all
registrants, all law enforcement officials, and prosecuting
attorneys responsible for enforcement of SORA.  As part of the
notification process, the Defendants must update their Explanation
of Duties form provided to all registrants.

To be clear: SORA will not become unenforceable as of the date of
the Order.  Rather, the holdings in the Opinion will become
effective and enforceable only after the entry of a final judgment,
at the time specified in that final judgment.

Accordingly,  Judge Cleland granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
declaratory and injunctive relief.  Michigan's SORA is declared
null and void as applied to members of the ex post facto subclasses
(any registrant whose offense requiring them to register, and who
has not committed a subsequent offense, occurred prior to April 12,
2011).  The Defendants and their agents will be enjoined from
enforcing any provision of SORA against members of the ex post
facto subclasses.

Judge Cleland also granted the Plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment.  The Defendants and their agents will be enjoined
from enforcing the following provisions of SORA against any
registrant:

     (a) Provisions Void for Vagueness: (1) the prohibition on
         working within a student safety zone; (2) the prohibition
         on loitering within a student safety zone; (3) the
         prohibition on residing within a student safety zone;
         (4) the requirement to report all telephone numbers
         routinely used by the individual; (5) the requirement to
         report the license plate number, registration number, and
         description of any motor vehicle, aircraft, or vessel
         regularly operated by the individual.

     (b) Provisions Void for Strict Liability: (1) under the Due
         Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, SORA must be
         interpreted as incorporating a knowledge requirement.

     (c) Provisions Void under the First Amendment: (1) the
         requirement to report in person and notify the
         registering authority immediately after the individual
         establishes any electronic mail or instant message  
         address, or any other designations used in internet
         communications or postings; (2) the requirement to
         report all telephone numbers routinely used by the
         individual; (3) the requirement to report all
         electronic mail addresses and instant message addresses
         routinely used by the individual; and (4) the
         retroactive incorporation of the lifetime
         registration's requirement to report all electronic
         mail addresses and instant message addresses assigned
         to the individual and all login names or other
         identifiers used by the individual when using any
         electronic mail address or instant messaging system.

The Defendants will provide notice of the ruling to all
registrants, and all law enforcement officials and prosecuting
attorneys tasked with the enforcement of SORA.  The parties will
jointly formulate the form of such notices, including formulating
an updated Explanation of Duties form to provide to all registrants
each time they report.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/P1ux5W from Leagle.com.

John Doe, John Doe #2, John Doe#3, John Doe #4, John Doe #5, John
Doe #6 & John Doe 1, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel S. Korobkin,
American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Miriam J.
Aukerman, American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, West Michigan
Regional Office, Paul D. Reingold -- pdr@umich.edu -- University of
Michigan & Alyson L. Oliver -- notifications@oliverlawgroup.com.

Richard Snyder & COL. KRISTE ETUE, Defendants, represented by
Joseph T. Froehlich, Michigan Attorney General, Complex Litigation
Division, B. Eric Restuccia, Michigan Department of Attorney
General, Jared D. Schultz, Michigan Departmetn of Attorney General,
John S. Pallas, Michigan Department of Attorney General, Appellate
Division & Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan Department of Attorney
General, Complex Litigation Division.

Edward Burley, Interested Party, pro se.

Curwood L. Price, Interested Party, pro se.


MIDNIGHT EXPRESS: Bid to Certify Class in Vision Power Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VISION POWER, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, and GREGG WILLIAMS, individually, Plaintiffs, v. MIDNIGHT
EXPRESS POWER BOATS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-61700-SINGHAL/Valle (S.D. Fla.), Judge Raag Singhal of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of
Lead Counsel.

Vision Power and Gregg Williams seek class certification and
appointment as Lead Plaintiffs in the class action against
Defendant Midnight Express Power Boats, Inc., a boat manufacturer
from whom Williams purchased a specially-designed, 34' speedboat.

In December 2014, Williams custom-ordered the Subject Boat from
Midnight Express.  About five months later, the bill of sale
assigned interest in the Subject Boat from Gregg Williams
personally to Vision Power, a Florida limited liability company,
the sole member of which is "the Gregg G. Williams 2006 Trust."
Less than a week later, Vision Power registered the Subject Boat in
the State of Delaware.

In February 2018, Vision Power hired a crew to tow the Subject Boat
on the back of a yacht through international waters.  What happened
during that journey is the subject of the litigation.  En route to
its destination, the center console of the Subject Boat sheared in
half and dislodged, smashing into the stern and causing significant
damage to the Subject Boat.

The Plaintiffs contend Midnight Express caused the damage to the
Subject Boat by failing to follow its own construction
specifications and not using a high-grade structural adhesive named
Plexus, and rather using inadequate short bolts, with
non-structural cosmetic light-duty washers poorly fastened to
fiberglass.

Not so, says Midnight Express.  It pins blame on the towing crew
and the manner in which the crew towed the Subject Boat.  Although
the crew's captain had "substantial experience" operating large
yachts through international waters, he had never operated a yacht
as large as the one that day.  He was not licensed to tow the
Subject Boat.  He did not inquire as to the proper speed at which
the yacht could tow the Subject Boat.  Consequently, the crew towed
the Subject Boat at a speed of 16 knots, while, according to the
damage report, the maximum safe speed at which it should have been
towed was 7.46 knots.

The Third Amended Complaint is the current iteration of the
Plaintiffs' case against Midnight Express.  They bring claims for
breaches of warranties and breach of contract. They pray for
monetary damages, including consequential damages.

The instant motion, however, centers around certifying their
proposed class.  The Plaintiffs propose a class of all persons who
purchased center console speedboats from Midnight Express,
including the Open 34' and all other variations of speedboats that
have the same center console design.  

The class seeks injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2) accordingly requiring Midnight Express to
provide appropriate warning to all consumers of similar vessels
that its manufacturing deficiencies could lead to substantial
injury and requiring Midnight Express to design and implement an
appropriate corrective action for all such consumers, including to
members of the class.

Upon reviewing the pleadings, counsels' arguments, applicable law,
and the record before the Court, Judge Singhal finds that Williams
individually does not have standing to represent the putative class
as a Lead Plaintiff; and the putative class fails certification
because it cannot satisfy the typicality factor under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3) or the requirement of
ascertainability.

Based on Vision Power's claims against Midnight Express, it may
appear that the typicality factor is satisfied.  But what
frustrates typicality is the fact that there are no allegations
that any other class member's boat was towed by the crew on a
yacht, much less the same yacht. Under the so-called "unique
defense problem," class certification is "vitiated" when the
Defendant has an affirmative defense unique only to the Lead
Plaintiff.

Given the allegations in the Third Amended Complaint and Midnight
Express's answer, there is sufficient factual dispute to be left to
a jury to determine whether the towing crew's actions were a
superseding, intervening cause of Vision Power's damages.  And this
goes to the heart of Midnight Express's defense theory; Midnight
Express specifically raises it as its fifth affirmative defense.
The same cannot be said for any other class member's damages.

Other courts have used far more expansive reasoning to deny class
certification under the unique defense problem.   In McNichols v.
Loeb Rhoades & Co., the sister district found that such a defense
need "only" be "arguable."  The Judge is satisfied that such
defense from Midnight Express is stronger than "arguable"; the
defense is certain.  No party denies the crew towed the Subject
Boat on the yacht.  The disagreement is only as to the crew's
liability.  Given the totality of the circumstances, the proposed
class cannot go forward with such unique allegations to the Lead
Plaintiff's case-in-chief.

The Court agrees with Midnight Express; the proposed class by
Vision Power cannot be defined by objective criteria.  Midnight
Express points the Court to Eleventh Circuit case law that stands
for the position that classes are neither clearly defined nor
identifiable through a "manageable process" under similar
circumstances to those in the case.  Further, in Melton v. Century
Arms, Inc., the court determined the proposed class failed
ascertainability when the determination of its members would
require information of secondary (and tertiary and beyond) market
purchasers.

Because he sees the case no differently than Melton, there is no
reason to draw distinctions where they do not exist.  The class
fails ascertainability, too.  The definition of who fits within a
class of "owners of defectively designed and manufactured 34', 37',
and 39' center-console boats sold from 2012 to the present"
requires far too much work to be considered "administratively
feasible."

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Singhal denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify Class and Appoint Lead Counsel.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 18, 2020 Corrected
Order is available at https://is.gd/jg1nU4 from Leagle.com.

Vision Power LLC & Gregg Williams, Plaintiffs, represented by Marc
L. Newman -- mln@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, pro hac
vice, Paige M. Szymanski -- pms@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law
Firm, pro hac vice, Seth D. Gould -- sdg@millerlawpc.com -- The
Miller Law Firm, pro hac vice & James Richard Dunn --
James@AttorneyJamesDunn.com -- James R. Dunn, P.A.

Midnight Express Power Boats, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher Rogers Fertig -- chris.fertig@fertig.com -- Fertig &
Gramling, Darlene M. Lidondici -- chris.fertig@fertig.com -- Fertig
& Gramling & Kristen Marie Susik -- kms@fertig.com -- Fertig and
Gramling.


MIDNIGHT EXPRESS: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Vision Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VISION POWER, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, and GREGG WILLIAMS, individually, Plaintiffs, v. MIDNIGHT
EXPRESS POWER BOATS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-61700-SINGHAL/Valle (S.D. Fla.), Judge Raag Singhal of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of
Lead Counsel.

In December 2014, Gregg Williams custom-ordered the Subject Boat
from Midnight Express.  About five months later, the bill of sale
assigned interest in the Subject Boat from Gregg Williams
personally to Vision Power, a Florida limited liability company,
the sole member of which is the Gregg G. Williams 2006 Trust.  Less
than a week later, Vision Power registered the Subject Boat in the
State of Delaware.

In February 2018, Vision Power hired a crew to tow the Subject Boat
on the back of a yacht through international waters.   What
happened during that journey is the subject of the litigation.  En
route to its destination, the center console of the Subject Boat
sheared in half and dislodged, smashing into the stern and causing
significant damage to the Subject Boat.  The Plaintiffs contend
Midnight Express caused the damage to the Subject Boat by failing
to follow its own construction specifications and not using a
high-grade structural adhesive named Plexus, and rather using
inadequate short bolts, with non-structural cosmetic light-duty
washers poorly fastened to fiberglass.

Not so, says Midnight Express.  It pins blame on the towing crew
and the manner in which the crew towed the Subject Boat.  Although
the crew's captain had substantial experience operating large
yachts through international waters, he had never operated a yacht
as large as the one that day.  He did not inquire as to the proper
speed at which the yacht could tow the Subject Boat.  Consequently,
the crew towed the Subject Boat at a speed of 16 knots, while,
according to the damage report, the maximum safe speed at which it
should have been towed was 7.46 knots.

The Third Amended Complaint is the current iteration of the
Plaintiffs' case against Midnight Express.  They bring claims for
breaches of warranties and breach of contract.  They pray for
monetary damages, including consequential damages.

The instant motion, however, centers around certifying their
proposed class.  The Plaintiffs propose a class of all persons who
purchased center console speedboats from Midnight Express,
including the Open 34' and all other variations of speedboats that
have the same center console design.

The class seeks injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2) accordingly: Requiring Midnight Express to
provide appropriate warning to all consumers of similar vessels
that its manufacturing deficiencies could lead to substantial
injury and requiring Midnight Express to design and implement an
appropriate corrective action for all such consumers, including to
members of the class.

For the moment, Judge Singhal must set aside the Rule 23 factors to
address the "threshold matter" of Vision Power's and Williams'
standing to represent the putative class.  Midnight Express
contends neither Vision Power nor Williams has standing to
represent the class.  The Judge agrees, but only as to Williams.
While he need not show ownership, Williams has failed to show any
present, legal interest -- not even a minimum possessory interest
-- in the Subject Boat.  Therefore, the Judge cannot find that he
is suffering an ongoing injury or faces an immediate threat of
injury.  Williams lacks standing to represent the putative class.

The analysis for Vision Power, however, is different.  It does not
have a possessory-interest problem.  However, Midnight Express
attacks Vision Power's standing under somewhat of a redressability
theory.  The Judge finds Vision Power meets the three elements of
standing to represent the putative class.  Further, he finds
Midnight Express's premise untenable.  To accept its position would
be to rule that there are no set of facts that would ever allow a
proposed lead plaintiff to represent a class when seeking Rule
23(b)(2) injunctive relief.  It is axiomatic that a proposed lead
plaintiff would already know about the alleged problem for which it
files its lawsuit.  To hold any other way would, by its very
definition, mean a proposed lead plaintiff could not sue for an
injury because it already knows of that injury.  Simply, if a
proposed lead plaintiff is forever precluded from representing a
class because it already knows of the alleged problem and,
therefore, cannot benefit from a court-ordered notice, Rule
23(b)(2) would be rendered entirely superfluous.  This, the Court
cannot do.  Vision Power has standing to represent the putative
class.

Because there is a Lead Plaintiff with standing to represent a
potential class, the Court now returns to the Rule 23 factors
(numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and
ascertainability) and assesses whether the proposed class is able
to proceed.  The Court finds that while the proposed class has
satisfied the numerosity, commonality, and adequacy factors, it
fails typicality and ascertainability.

Based on Vision Power's claims against Midnight Express, it may
appear that the typicality factor is satisfied.  But what
frustrates typicality here is the fact that there are no
allegations that any other class member's boat was towed by the
crew on a yacht, much less the same yacht.  Given the allegations
in the Third Amended Complaint and Midnight Express's answer, there
is sufficient factual dispute to be left to a jury to determine
whether the towing crew's actions were a superseding, intervening
cause of Vision Power's damages.  And this goes to the heart of
Midnight Express's defense theory; Midnight Express specifically
raises it as its fifth affirmative defense.  The same cannot be
said for any other class member's damages.

The Court also agrees with Midnight Express; the proposed class by
Vision Power cannot be defined by objective criteria.  Midnight
Express points the trial court to Eleventh Circuit case law that
stands for the position that classes are neither clearly defined
nor identifiable through a "manageable process" under similar
circumstances to those in the case.  Further, in Melton v. Century
Arms, Inc., the court determined the proposed class failed
ascertainability when the determination of its members would
require information of secondary (and tertiary and beyond) market
purchasers.  Because the Court sees the case no differently than
Melton and Karhu v. Vital Pharm., Inc., there is no reason to draw
distinctions where they do not exist.  The class fails
ascertainability, too.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Singhal denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify Class and Appoint Lead Counsel.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/1ryklE from Leagle.com.

Vision Power LLC & Gregg Williams, Plaintiffs, represented by Marc
L. Newman -- mln@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, pro hac
vice, Paige M. Szymanski -- pms@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law
Firm, pro hac vice, Seth D. Gould -- sdg@millerlawpc.com -- The
Miller Law Firm, pro hac vice & James Richard Dunn --
James@AttorneyJamesDunn.com -- James R. Dunn, P.A.

Midnight Express Power Boats, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher Rogers Fertig -- chris.fertig@fertig.com -- Fertig &
Gramling, Darlene M. Lidondici -- dml@fertig.com -- Fertig &
Gramling & Kristen Marie Susik -- kms@fertig.com -- Fertig and
Gramling.


MISSISSIPPI POWER: Bid to Dismiss Turnage Class Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi Power Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that Mississippi PSC's
motion to dismiss the class action suit initiated by Ray C. Turnage
has been granted.

In November 2018, Ray C. Turnage and 10 other individual plaintiffs
filed a putative class action complaint against Mississippi Power
and three members of the Mississippi PSC in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Mississippi Power received Mississippi PSC approval in 2013 to
charge a mirror CWIP rate premised upon including in its rate base
pre-construction and construction costs for the Kemper IGCC prior
to placing the Kemper IGCC into service.

The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed that approval and ordered
Mississippi Power to refund the amounts paid by customers under the
previously-approved mirror CWIP rate.

The plaintiffs allege that the initial approval process, and the
amount approved, were improper. They also allege that Mississippi
Power underpaid customers by up to $23.5 million in the refund
process by applying an incorrect interest rate.

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and their
putative class, actual damages, punitive damages, pre-judgment
interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, and costs.

In response to Mississippi Power and the Mississippi PSC each
filing a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint in March 2019. The amended complaint included four
additional plaintiffs and additional claims for gross negligence,
reckless conduct, and intentional wrongdoing. Mississippi Power and
the Mississippi PSC have each filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On March 27, 2020, the Mississippi PSC's motion to dismiss was
granted.

Also on March 27, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to
name the new members of the Mississippi PSC, the Mississippi
Development Authority, and Southern Company as additional
defendants and add a cause of action against all defendants under a
cause of action based on a dormant commerce clause theory under the
U.S. Constitution.

On April 9, 2020 and April 10, 2020, Mississippi Power and the
Mississippi PSC, respectively, filed responses opposing the motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint.

Mississippi Power's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint
filed in 2019 remains pending before the court.

An adverse outcome in this proceeding could have a material impact
on Mississippi Power's financial statements.

Mississippi Power Company, headquartered in Gulfport, Mississippi,
is a regulated utility subsidiary of The Souterhern Company, a
utility holding company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


MISSISSIPPI: Waddell Challenges Inadequate Response to COVID-19
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Waddell, Roger Ewing, Tony Smith, Daniel Hatten, Douglass
Triplett, Erik Lewis, Bob Henderson, Thomas Holder, and Jamarcus
Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. TOMMY TAYLOR, in his official capacity as Interim Commissions of
the Mississippi Department of Corrections; RON KIN, in his official
capacity as Superintendent of Central Mississippi Correctional
Facility; and JOE ERRINGTON, in his official capacity as
Superintendent of South Mississippi Correctional Institution, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00340-TSL-RHW (S.D. Miss., May 14, 2020), is brought as
a challenge to the inadequate response to the COVID-19 pandemic at
Mississippi's two largest prisons--Central Mississippi Correctional
Facility and South Mississippi Correctional Institution--which
together house approximately 6,000 women and men.

According to the complaint, individuals have reported having
symptoms of coronavirus but were not immediately isolated or
tested. System-wide, Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC)
has tested less than one half of one percent of its population for
COVID019--only a few dozen of the over 18,000 individuals it holds
in custody. MDOC's failure to adequately implement baseline
protective measures at CMCF and SMCI months into the pandemic
violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation
Act--federal laws that protect women and men in prison whose
disabilities put them at an increased risk of contracting, becoming
severely ill from, and dying as a result of COVID-19 infection.

MDOC's failure also violates the right of all residents at CMCF and
SMCI to be free from conditions of confinement that create a
substantial risk of serious harm to their health and safety, as
guaranteed under the Eight Amendment of the United States
Constitution, the Plaintiffs contend. In this case, the Plaintiffs
seek a court order requiring adequate implementation of measure
necessary to minimize and manage an outbreak of COVID-19 at CMCF
and SMCI.

Tommy Taylor is sued in his official capacity as Interim
Commissions of the Mississippi Department of Corrections.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan L. Abram, Esq.
          John P. Hamilton, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          Columbia Square
          555 Thirteenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone (202) 637-5600
          Email: jonathan.abram@hoganlovells.com
                 john.hamilton@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Madeleine R. Bech, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 9411
          Phone (415) 374-2300
          Email: madeleine.bech@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Sydney C. Rupe, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          609 Main Street, Suite 4200
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone (713) 632-1400
          Email: sydeney.rupe@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Paloma Wu, Esq.
          Robert B. McDuff, Esq.
          MISSISSIPPI CENTER FOR JUSTICE
          5 Old River Pl., Ste. 203
          Jackson, MS 39202
          Phone: (601) 709-0875
          Email: pwu@mscenterforjustice.com
                 pwu@mscenterforjustice.com

               - and -

          Mark Whitburn, Esq.
          WHITBURN & PEVSNER, PLLC
          2000 E. Lamar Blvd., Suite 600
          Arlington, TX 76016
          Phone: (817) 653-4547
          Email: mwhitburn@whitburnpevsner.com

               - and -

          Joshua Tom, Esq.
          ACLU MISSISSIPPI
          233 East Capitol Street
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Phone: (601) 354-3408
          Email: jtom@aclu-ms.org


MOLSON COORS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Colorado Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Molson Coors Beverage Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit filed in the
Colorado District Court remains pending.

On February 15, 2019, two purported stockholders filed
substantially similar putative class action complaints against the
Company, Mark R. Hunter, and Tracey I. Joubert in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado, and in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On February 21, 2019, another purported stockholder filed a
substantially similar complaint in the Colorado District Court.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of the Company's
stockholders and assert that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by allegedly making false and
misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's
restatement of consolidated financial statements for the years
ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017, and that the Company
purportedly lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an unspecified amount of
damages and attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.

On April 16, 2019, motions to consolidate and appoint a lead
plaintiff were filed in each case. On May 24, 2019, the securities
class action suit filed with the Illinois District Court was
transferred to the Colorado District Court, and subsequently was
voluntarily dismissed on July 25, 2019.

On October 2, 2019, the class action lawsuits originally filed in
Colorado District Court were consolidated, and, on October 3, 2019,
the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the
consolidated case.

On December 9, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint
alleging that the Defendants made false statements and material
omissions to the market beginning in February 2017 and ending in
February 2019, which, it alleges, misled the market as to the
strength of the company's financial condition and internal control
processes related to financial accounting.

The amended complaint further alleges that the Company and the
Defendants caused the Company to falsely report its financial
results by overstating retained earnings, net income, and tax
benefits and understating deferred tax liabilities in an effort to
inflate the price of our common stock.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
January 23, 2020; the plaintiff subsequently filed an opposition to
the company's motion to dismiss on March 9, 2020; and the company
filed its reply brief in support of our motion to dismiss on April
8, 2020.

Molson said, "We intend to defend the claims vigorously. A range of
potential loss is not estimable at this time."

Molson Coors Beverage Company (NYSE: TAP) is a multinational
brewing company, formed in 2005 by the merger of Molson of Canada,
and Coors of the United States.  At December 31, 2019, the
Company's reporting segments included: MillerCoors LLC
("MillerCoors" or U.S. segment), operating in the United States;
Molson Coors Canada ("MCC" or Canada segment), operating in Canada;
Molson Coors Europe (Europe segment), operating in Bulgaria,
Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Montenegro, the Republic of
Ireland, Romania, Serbia, the United Kingdom and various other
European countries; and Molson Coors International ("MCI" or
International segment), operating in various other countries.


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Illinois Securities Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend against a putative securities class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

On November 14, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against MoneyGram and certain of its executive
officers.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that MoneyGram made
material misrepresentations regarding its compliance with the
stipulated order for permanent injunction and final judgment that
MoneyGram entered into with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") in
October 2009 and with the deferred prosecution agreement (the
"DPA") that MoneyGram entered into with the U.S. Attorney's Office
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Department of
Justice in November 2012.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest,
and costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes the case is without merit and is vigorously
defending this matter.

MoneyGram said, "We are unable to predict the outcome, or the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, related to this matter."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

MoneyGram International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides money transfer services in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through two segments, Global
Funds Transfer and Financial Paper Products. MoneyGram
International, Inc. was founded in 1940 and is based in Dallas,
Texas.


NAVIENT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Lord Abbett Fund Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit entitled, ord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc.,
et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al.

During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain
Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain
Navient securities offerings were sued in three putative securities
class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in
Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt.

These three cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware, were consolidated by the District Court,
with Lord Abbett Funds appointed as Lead Plaintiff.

The caption of the consolidated case is Lord Abbett Affiliated
Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al. The plaintiffs
filed their amended and consolidated complaint in September 2016.

In September 2017, the Court granted the Navient defendants' motion
and dismissed the complaint in its entirety with leave to amend.
The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with the court in
November 2017 and the Navient defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint in January 2018.

In January 2019, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part the
Navient defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Navient defendants deny the allegations and intend to
vigorously defend against the allegation in this lawsuit.

Discovery is on-going.

Navient Corporation, incorporated on November 7, 2013, provides
asset management and business processing services to education,
healthcare and government clients at the federal, state and local
levels. The Company holds the portfolio of education loans insured
or federally guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan
Program (FFELP). The Company operates through four segments: FFELP
Loans, Private Education Loans, Business Services and Other. It
also holds the portfolio of Private Education Loans. The company is
based in Wilmington, Delaware.


NBTY INC: Court Stays Alvarez Pending Rule 23(f) Petition Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROSA ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NBTY, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00567-BAS-BGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge
Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion to stay the
case until the Ninth Circuit rules on her Rule 23(f) petition.

Alvarez filed a complaint against Defendants NBTY and Nature's
Bounty, Inc., alleging they violated California's Unfair
Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act through the false
labeling of their products.  The Plaintiff moved for class
certification.  The Court denied Alvarez's motion for class
certification, and soon afterwards, Alvarez filed a petition with
the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(f).  The Plaintiff also filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's order, which the Court denied.

The Plaintiff now moves for the District Court to stay the case
until the Ninth Circuit rules on her Rule 23(f) petition.  The
Defendant opposes the Motion to Stay.

Judge Bashant disagrees that these are debatable legal questions.
However, the Judge does find the present case to be a unique one --
where neither party disputes the effectiveness of the nutrient
(biotin) in the contested product, but the parties disagree as to
the effectiveness of the contested product, and thus, the truth or
falsity of the product's label.  It is a question that has not been
directly addressed by the Ninth Circuit; it appears to be undecided
as to how such an issue would fit into the predominance analysis
under Rule 23.  Accordingly, the case raises at least one serious
legal question.

Next, Judge Bashant holds that whether the case will proceed as an
individual case or a class action will drastically affect the
parties' pretrial preparation.  Of course, the outcome of the Rule
23(f) petition will not provide guidance on the underlying issues
in the case; if the Ninth Circuit grants the petition, it is merely
agreeing to hear the appeal, not making any determination on the
merits regarding class certification.  Still, it seems unnecessary
to try the case as an individual action now when the Ninth Circuit
could later determine that the case should proceed as a class
action. It is more efficient for both parties to know the Ninth
Circuit's decision before proceeding.  Furthermore, Judge Bashant
finds no harm to Defendant in temporarily staying the case.  Thus,
the balance of hardships tips toward a stay in the action.

Finally, a stay in the case will help to ensure the proper
resolution of the important issues raised in the case by preventing
potentially wasteful work on the part of the court and the parties
while the Ninth Circuit considers the Plaintiff's Rule 23(f)
petition.  Judge Bashant therefore finds that the public interest
weighs in favor of a stay.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Bashant finds that the case should be
temporarily stayed in the interests of justice.  Accordingly, the
Judge granted the Plaintiff's Motion, and stayed the case in its
entirety pending resolution of the Plaintiff's Rule 23(f) petition,
and if the petition is granted, the Plaintiff's Ninth Circuit
appeal.

The pretrial deadlines and pretrial conference (March 9, 2020),
motion in limine deadlines and hearing (April 27, 2020), and trial
dates (May 5, 2020) are vacated and may be re-set depending on the
circuit court's future ruling(s).

The parties will file a joint notice within one week of any
disposition of the Rule 23(f) petition which informs the Court of
the Ninth Circuit's decision and how they each wish to proceed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 18, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/wgSTJC from Leagle.com.

Rosa Alvarez, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie A. Laliberte --
claliberte@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, PC,
pro
hac vice., Elaine A. Ryan -- eryan@bffb.com --Bonnett, Fairbourn,
Friedman & Balint, PC, pro hac vice, Michael Matthew Chang --
mchang@siprut.com -- Siprut PC, pro hac vice, Nada Djordjevic --
ndjordjevic@boodlaw.com -- Boodell & Domanskis, LLC, pro hac vice,
Patricia N. Syverson -- psyverson@bffb.com -- Bonnett, Fairbourn,
Friedman & Balint, PC & Stewart Weltman -- sweltman@siprut.com --
Siprut PC, pro hac vice.

Colleen Lesher, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Nada Djordjevic , Boodell &
Domanskis, LLC, pro hac vice & Patricia N. Syverson, Bonnett,
Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC.

NBTY, Inc., a Delaware corporation & Nature's Bounty, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by Amanda Leigh
Groves -- agroves@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP & Shawn
Rieko
Obi, Winston & Stawn LLP.


NEON THERAPEUTICS: Class Suits Challenge BioNTech Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Neon Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has been
named as a defendant in putative class action suits related to its
merger with BioNTech SE.

On January 15, 2020, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's
shareholders stand to receive 0.063 American Depositary Shares
("ADR") of BioNTech for each share of Neon stock they own (the
"Merger Consideration"). Upon completion of the merger, Neon
shareholders will own approximately 0.85% and BioNTech shareholders
will own approximately 99.15% of the combined company.

In connection with the Merger, a putative class action lawsuit,
Franchi v. Neon Therapeutics, Inc., et al., 1:20-cv-00482, was
filed on April 7, 2020 by purported Company stockholder Adam
Franchi against the Company, its directors, BioNTech, and Merger
Sub in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

On April 10, 2020, in connection with the Merger, a complaint,
Alvarado v. Neon Therapeutics, Inc., et al., 1:20-cv-02959, was
filed as an individual action by purported Company stockholder
Francisco J. Dos Ramos Alvarado against the Company and its
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

On April 13, 2020, in connection with the Merger, a complaint,
Ezebunwa v. Neon Therapeutics, Inc., et al., 1:20-cv-03001, was
filed as an individual action by purported Company stockholder
Esther Ezebunwa against the Company and its directors in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On April 15, 2020, in connection with the Merger, a putative class
action lawsuit, Marks v. Neon Therapeutics, Inc., et al.,
1:20-cv-03033, was filed by purported Company stockholder John
Marks against the Company and its directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

On April 15, 2020, in connection with the Merger, a complaint, Shen
v. Neon Therapeutics, Inc., et al., 1:20-cv-03035, was filed as an
individual action by purported Company stockholder David Shen
against the Company and its directors in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

On April 15, 2020, in connection with the Merger, a complaint,
Gilbert v. Neon Therapeutics, et al., 1:20-cv-01816, was filed as
an individual action by purported Company stockholder Phillip
Gilbert against the Company and its directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The Franchi, Alvarado, Ezebunwa, Marks, Shen, and Gilbert cases are
collectively referred to as the "Merger Actions." The Merger
Actions generally allege that the definitive proxy statement filed
on April 2, 2020 misrepresents and/or omits certain purportedly
material information relating to financial projections, analysis
performed by Duff & Phelps, LLC ("Duff & Phelps"), and past
engagements of Duff & Phelps and Ondra Partners. The Merger Actions
assert violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder against the Company and its directors
and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
Company's directors.

The Franchi Merger Action also asserts violations of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act against BioNTech and Merger Sub.

The Shen Merger Action also asserts claims for breach of fiduciary
duty against the Company's directors.

The Merger Actions seek, among other things: an injunction
enjoining consummation of the Merger, costs of the action,
including plaintiff's attorneys' fees and experts' fees,
declaratory relief and any other relief the court may deem just and
proper.

Neon Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage immuno-oncology company
and a leader in the field of neoantigen-targeted therapies,
dedicated to transforming the treatment of cancer by directing the
immune system towards neoantigens. The company is based in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.


NESTLE USA: Bid to Dismiss First Amended Prescott Denied as Moot
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN PRESCOTT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NESTLE USA,
INC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-07471-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth
Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Jose Division, terminated as moot Nestle's
motion to strike the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") and grant its
motion to dismiss as unopposed.

Plaintiffs Linda Cheslow and Prescott bring the putative class
action against Nestle and 10 Doe defendants.  Before the Court is
Nestle's motion to dismiss the Complaint, filed on Dec. 4, 2019.
Instead of filing an opposition, the Plaintiffs filed the First
Amended Complaint (FAC) on Jan. 22, 2020.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), however,
the Plaintiffs' deadline to amend its complaint as of right was
Dec. 26, 2019.  Accordingly, Nestle asks the Court to strike the
Amended Complaint and grant its motion to dismiss as unopposed.  

The Plaintiffs object.  They point out that the parties had
stipulated to, inter alia, an extension of the deadline for them to
"respond" to Nestle's motion to dismiss, which they believe covers
a response in the form of an amended complaint.  And indeed, the
FAC does not appear to add new claims or parties, but rather to
respond to the deficiencies argued in the motion to dismiss.

In the interest of efficiency, and because the Plaintiffs' actions
appear to have resulted from a lack of clarity regarding the scope
of the parties' stipulation, Judge Freeman accepts the Amended
Complaint as the operative complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a)(2).  The motion to dismiss the original Complaint
is therefore terminated as moot.  The Defendants' deadline to
respond to the First Amended Complaint was Feb. 28, 2020.  The
parties are advised to be more precise in their future
stipulations.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/Q36kp9 from Leagle.com.

Steven Prescott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bahar Sodaify , Clarkson Law
Firm, P.C., Matthew Thomas Theriault --
mtheriault@clarksonlawfirm.com -- Capstone Law APC, Ryan J.
Clarkson , Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. & Shireen M. Clarkson , Clarkson
Law Firm, P.C.

Linda Cheslow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan J. Clarkson, Clarkson Law
Firm, P.C.

Nestle USA, Inc, Defendant, represented by Keri Elizabeth Borders
-- kborders@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP & Dale Joseph Giali
-- dgiali@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP.


NETGEAR INC: Says Settlement Discussions Underway
-------------------------------------------------
NETGEAR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the court has granted
the parties' stipulation to stay proceedings to permit filing of a
motion for preliminary approval for classwide settlement in the
consolidated class action suit.

On February 6, 2018, the company announced that the Board of
Directors had unanimously approved the pursuit of a separation of
its smart camera business, Arlo, from NETGEAR (the "Separation") to
be effected by way of an initial public offering ("IPO") and
spin-off ("the Spin-Off"). On December 31, 2018, the company
completed the Spin-Off of Arlo Technologies, Inc. ("Arlo"), a
majority owned subsidiary and reporting segment of NETGEAR at the
time.

On January 9, 2019 and January 10, 2019, February 1, 2019 and
February 8, 2019, the Company was sued in four separate securities
class action suits in Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, along with Arlo Technologies, individuals, and underwriters
involved in the spin-off of Arlo.

Two more similar state actions have been filed against Arlo
Technologies Inc. et al.. In total, six putative class action
complaints have now been filed in California state court in Santa
Clara County.

The Company is named as a defendant in five of the six lawsuits.

The complaints generally allege that Arlo's Initial Public Offering
(IPO) materials contained false and misleading statements, hiding
problems with Arlo’s Ultra product.

These claims are styled as violations of Sections 11, 12(a), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933.

There is also a putative class action pending in federal court in
the Northern District of California, on behalf of the same class of
plaintiffs, making very similar claims. The Company is not
presently named in the federal action.

Defendants filed motions to stay the state court actions in
deference to the federal court action.

The court held a hearing on April 26, 2019 to consider whether to
consolidate the six lawsuits and appoint a "lead plaintiff" and
another hearing on May 31, 2019 to consider defendants’ motions
to stay the state court cases.

On June 21, 2019, the California state court judge granted the
Company's motion to stay the state court case pending the outcome
of the federal case. The case will now proceed only in federal
court.

On August 6, 2019, all the defendants, including NETGEAR, filed a
motion to dismiss the federal court action. Plaintiffs filed their
opposition brief on September 6, 2019 and defendants filed a reply
on October 4, 2019.

The motion is set for hearing on December 5, 2019.

The state court action remains stayed pending the outcome of the
federal action.

On November 18, 2019, the parties participated in mediation, but
did not settle the case. On December 5, 2019, the court held a
hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss, and on December 19,
2019, granted that motion as to all counts, with leave to amend.
The Parties are currently discussing settlement.

On February 14, 2020, the Court granted the Parties' stipulation to
stay proceedings to permit filing of a motion for preliminary
approval for classwide settlement.

It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the
Company resulting from these matters.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

NETGEAR, Inc. designs, develops and markets networking products for
home users and small businesses worldwide. The Company, based in
Santa Clara, Calif., was founded in 1996.


NEVADA: District of Nevada Certifies Class in HCV Prisoners Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Miranda M. Du of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada granted the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in IN RE HCV
PRISON LITIGATION, Case No. 3:19-cv-00577-MMD-CLB (D. Nev.).

Plaintiffs Marty Scott Fitzgerald, Elizabeth Carley, Donald Savage,
Howard White, Carl Olsen, Scott Bedard, Stephen Ciolino, and
Mitchell Fields seek to certify a declarative and injunctive class
of similarly-situated people incarcerated -- or who will be
incarcerated in the future -- and in the custody of the Nevada
Department of Corrections ("NDOC") who suffer from chronic cases of
the Hepatitis C virus ("HCV").  NDOC recently changed its policy
governing the treatment of HCV-positive incarcerated individuals,
but the Plaintiffs assert the policy's prioritization system
conflicts with the medical standard of care and exposes
incarcerated people to an unreasonable risk of harm in violation of
their Eighth Amendment rights.

The Plaintiffs are all incarcerated people in NDOC's custody who
are HCV-positive and requested DAA treatment, but were either
refused by NDOC officials, or, in the case of Scott Bedard only,
were refused for two years, though he is now being treated with the
DAA Epclusa.  The Plaintiffs all describe the negative health
effects they have experienced because of NDOC's refusal to treat
them with DAAs, including the negative mental health impact of
knowing that their disease will get worse over time, and that an
effective cure exists, but they will not receive treatment.  They
primarily seek class-wide injunctive relief, though they also seek
individual damages.

The Plaintiffs more specifically allege that NDOC refused to treat
the Plaintiffs' HCV with direct-acting antiviral drugs ("DAAs")
because NDOC officials determined they did not qualify for DAA
treatment under Medical Directive Number 219.  NDOC agrees that MD
219 governs the treatment of HCV-positive incarcerated people in
its custody.

However, MD 219 includes three priority levels for HCV treatment.
The Plaintiffs argue this prioritization system conflicts with the
standard of care and exposes incarcerated people to an unreasonable
risk of harm, but NDOC argues the prioritization system guarantees
that all HCV patient will receive DAAs as needed and required to
treat their condition, while at the same time providing medical
personnel with discretion and flexibility to safeguard that those
in a lower level of priority obtain expedited DAA treatment when in
the sound judgment of the medical provider examining the patient it
is determined that it is medically necessary.  The Plaintiffs
counter there is no medical justification for delaying DAA
treatment to individuals in any of the priority levels.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all persons: (a) who are
or will be in the legal custody of the NDOC; (b) who have been
incarcerated for at least 21 days and have at least 12 weeks
remaining on their sentence; (c) who have been diagnosed with
chronic HCV and are candidates for DAA treatment pursuant to the
proper medical standard of care; and (d) for whom DAA treatment has
been or will be denied, withheld, or delayed based on policies or
considerations that deviate from the proper medical standard of
care.

Judge Du conducts a rigorous analysis to determine whether it
should certify the class.  In conducting the analysis, the Judge
will first address whether the class is sufficiently definite, then
addresses each of the Rule 23(a) requirements, then Rule 23(b)(2),
and then finally the appointment of the class counsel.

Because it agrees with the Plaintiffs that they satisfy the
prerequisites for class certification, the Court will exercise her
discretion to grant the Motion and certify a class.  The Court will
further adopt the Plaintiffs' proposed definition of the class
members and issues for class litigation as noted in the conclusion
of the Order.

The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited
to several cases not discussed.  The Court has reviewed these
arguments and cases and determines that they do not warrant
discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the motion before
the Court.

Therefore, Judge Du granted the Plaintiff's motion to certify
class.  The Court certified a class of all persons: (a) who are or
will be in the legal custody of NDOC; (b) who have been
incarcerated for at least 21 days and have at least 12 weeks
remaining on their sentence; (c) who have been diagnosed with
chronic HCV and are candidates for DAA treatment pursuant to the
proper medical standard of care; and (d) for whom DAA treatment has
been or will be denied, withheld, or delayed based on policies or
considerations that deviate from the proper medical standard of
care.

The Court certified the following issues for class litigation: (1)
whether HCV is a serious medical need; (2) whether NDOC's policy
and practice of not providing HCV treatment constitutes deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eight
Amendment; (3) whether NDOC has knowingly failed to provide the
necessary staging of HCV patients in accordance with the prevailing
medical standard of care, including the pretreatment testing to
determine the severity of the disease; (4) whether NDOC has
knowingly employed policies and practices that unjustifiably delay
or deny treatment for HCV; (5) whether NDOC has permitted cost
considerations to improperly interfere with the treatment of HCV;
(6) whether HCV is a disability under the ADA (Americans with
Disabilities Act); (7) whether medical services in prison are a
program or service under the ADA; and (8) whether Defendant has
discriminated against NDOC inmates with HCV on the basis of their
disability by categorically denying them medical treatment, while
providing treatment for other diseases and conditions.

The Court appointed the Plaintiffs as named class representatives,
and the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.

The parties must address the issues of notice under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(c)(2) with Magistrate Judge Baldwin.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 18, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/OllJqA from Leagle.com.

In re HCV PRISON LITIGATION, Plaintiff, represented by Adam
Hosmer-Henner -- ahosmerhenner@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald
Carano Wilson LLP, D. Randall Gilmer, Office of Attorney General,
Douglas R. Rands, Nevada Attorney General, Frederick Benjamin Melms
-- fbmelmsesq@gmail.com -- Margaret A. McLetchie, McLetchie Law,
Ryan Andrew Hamilton -- ryan@hamlegal.com -- Hamilton Law, LLC,
Alina M. Shell, McLetchie Law & Chelsea Latino --
clatino@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald Carano LLP.


NEW JERSEY: Lacks COVID-19 Measures for Prisoners, Wragg Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
TROY WRAGG, MICHAEL SCRONIC, LEONARD BOGDAN, and ELIEZER
SOTO-CONCEPCION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. DAVID E. ORTIZ, in his capacity as Warden
of the Federal Correctional Institution, Fort Dix, and MICHAEL
CARVAJAL, in his capacity as Director of the Bureau of Prisons,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05496-RMB (D.N.J., May 4, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendants for violation of the Eighth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Rehabilitation Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to take appropriate
and necessary measures in order to protect the health and
well-being of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly-situated
prisoners at Fort Dix following the COVID-19 pandemic. According to
the complaint, the Defendants failed to implement testing, medical
isolation, quarantine, and social distancing to ensure
constitutionally-compliant custody of all prisoners. The Plaintiffs
and Class members at Fort Dix do not have access to safe conditions
of confinement and adequate preventative and responsive medical
treatment as mandated by the Rehabilitation Act. The Defendants'
inaction places the prisoners, especially those who are medically
vulnerable such as the Plaintiffs and Class members, to increasing
risk of serious illness or death.

Defendant David E. Ortiz is the warden at Fort Dix. As warden, he
is responsible for and oversees all day-to-day activity at Fort
Dix.

Defendant Michael Carvajal is the director of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons. As director, he is responsible for all BOP policies
implemented at Fort Dix. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Tess Borden, Esq.
         Jeanne LoCicero, Esq.
         AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW JERSEY FOUNDATION
         570 Broad Street, 11th floor
         Newark, NJ 07102
         Telephone: (973) 854-1733
         E-mail: tborden@aclu-nj.org

               - and –
         
         Jim Davy, Esq.
         2362 E. Harold Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19125
         Telephone: (609) 273-5008
         E-mail: jimdavy@gmail.com

               - and –

         Matthew Stiegler, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW STIEGLER
         7145 Germantown Avenue, Suite 2
         Philadelphia, PA 19119
         Telephone: (215) 242-1450
         E-mail: Matthew@StieglerLaw.com

NEW MEXICO: Settlement in Duran Prisoners Suit Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DWIGHT DURAN et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHELLE LUJAN
GRISHAM et al., Defendants, Civ. No. 77-721 KK/SCY (D. N.M.),
Magistrate Judge Kirtan Khalsa of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico granted the parties' Joint Motion for Final
Approval of the Second Revised Settlement Agreement.

The case is a class action originally brought in 1977 alleging
violations of the federal constitutional rights of certain inmates
in the State of New Mexico's custody.  By the parties' agreement,
the Court entered an order on July 15, 1980, noting that the
Plaintiff class had been certified under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(1) and (2), and redefining the class as: all those
inmates who are now, or in the future may be, incarcerated in the
Penitentiary of New Mexico at Santa Fe or at any maximum, close, or
medium security facility open for operation by the State of New
Mexico after June 12, 1980.

After extensive litigation, on June 10, 1991, the parties entered
into a settlement agreement resolving all then-pending motions.
The Court issued an order adopting the parties' agreement on Sept.
20, 1991.  By July 16, 1999, all of the substantive requirements in
the 1991 Consent Decree had been satisfied and vacated, except for
certain restrictions on overcrowding.  According to the decree,
these overcrowding restrictions were to remain in place in
perpetuity.

The litigation was dormant from late 1999 to late 2015, when a
class member revived it by filing pro se motions for an emergency
injunction and a contempt order.  The Class counsel resumed active
representation of the Plaintiff class, and on Aug. 5, 2016, with
the assistance of then-United States Chief Magistrate Judge Karen
B. Molzen, the parties reached a settlement of the then pending
disputes.  The Court approved the settlement on Aug. 31, 2016.

Almost a year later, on July 5, 2017, the class counsel filed the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Remedial Relief
regarding Violations of the Court's Stipulated Orders, alleging
that the Defendants were violating the 1991 Consent Decree and the
parties' 2016 settlement agreement.  

The Defendants opposed the Plaintiffs' motions.  However, they
subsequently withdrew these motions without prejudice to allow the
parties to pursue settlement negotiations.  The parties have
conducted extensive investigation and discovery regarding the
claims and defenses raised in their respective motions.

The parties participated in a settlement conference with United
States Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough on Feb. 25, 2019, March
29, 2019, and April 30, 2019.  At a status conference on May 3,
2019, the counsel advised the Court that the parties had reached a
settlement in principle.

On June 3, 2019, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Settlement Agreement.  In the motion, the parties
sought the Court's preliminary approval of a settlement agreement
signed on May 14, 2019.  The Court held a hearing on the motion on
June 11, 2019, after which the parties conferred and clarified
language in the agreement.   The parties incorporated their
clarifications into a Revised Settlement Agreement, which they
executed on Aug. 14, 2019.  The parties then filed a second Joint
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement on Aug. 21,
2019.

On Aug. 28, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the parties' Aug. 21,
2019 motion.  The Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement, and Approving and
Directing the Issuance of Notice to Plaintiff Class Members on
Sept. 5, 2019.  The Court also approved the Notice to Plaintiff
Class Members.  The Court directed Defendants to provide the Notice
and Revised Settlement Agreement to the class members.  It further
directed the Defendants to provide the Notice and Revised
Settlement Agreement to each inmate housed in any segregated
housing unit between Sept. 24, 2019 and Dec. 23, 2019 at the
inmate's election.

The Defendants provided notice of the proposed settlement to the
Plaintiff class as the Court directed, including at covered NMCD
facilities operated by private contractors.  In its Order Granting
Preliminary Approval, the Court directed any class member who
wished to object to the Revised Settlement Agreement to file his or
her objections in writing by Dec. 23, 2019 and directed the
Defendants to allow class members to submit timely objections free
of charge.

The parties filed a Joint Memorandum in Support of Final Court
Approval of the Revised Settlement Agreement on Jan. 22, 2020, and
the Parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Revised Settlement
Agreement on Jan. 30, 2020.  On Jan. 31, 2020, the parties filed a
Joint Motion and Memorandum of Law for Approval of a Modification
to Paragraph 12 of the Revised Settlement Agreement.  In the motion
the parties indicated that, after the Court entered its Order
Granting Preliminary Approval, they agreed to modify Paragraph 12
of the Revised Settlement Agreement.

The Court held a hearing on the parties' Joint Memorandum in
Support of Final Court Approval of the Revised Settlement Agreement
and the Parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Revised
Settlement Agreement on Feb. 3, 2020.  At the hearing, the parties
agreed to modify the Revised Settlement Agreement in two respects.


First, the parties agreed that Paragraph 1(d)(ii)(3) should state:
No more than five prisoners per dayroom will be assigned to
dayrooms in any facility and the dayroom housing must provide a
minimum of 50 square feet of combined living and sleeping space per
inmate (excluding the cell left open for hygiene, as set forth
below).  Second, the parties agreed that, in addition to eligible
inmates at Northwest New Mexico Correctional Facility, SCC, and
Western New Mexico Correctional Facility, eligible inmates at OCPF
should receive the remedial relief provided for in Paragraph 17 of
the parties' agreement.

At the Feb. 3, 2020 hearing, the Court took the Parties' Joint
Motion for Final Approval of Revised Settlement Agreement and the
Joint Motion and Memorandum of Law for Approval of a Modification
to Paragraph 12 of the Revised Settlement Agreement under
advisement pending the filing of a superseding joint motion
requesting final approval of the Revised Settlement Agreement with
the agreed-upon modifications to Paragraphs 1(d)(ii)(3), 12, and
17.

The parties filed their Joint Motion for Final Approval of the
Second Revised Settlement Agreement on Feb. 10, 2020.  In that
motion, the parties jointly ask the Court to finally approve the
parties' Second Revised Settlement Agreement, which incorporates
the modifications to Paragraphs 1(d)(ii)(3), 12, and 17 described.

Judge Khalsa finds that the Second Revised Settlement Agreement
should be finally approved under the standards set forth in Rule
23(e) and the PLRA.  The Plaintiff class is composed of all men
confined to a medium or higher custody facility and all women of
any classification level in the New Mexico Corrections Department's
custody.  He has determined that it is in the parties' best
interests and furthers the ends of justice for the Court to approve
the Second Revised Settlement Agreement.

The Judge approved the Second Revised Settlement Agreement as fair,
adequate, reasonable, and meeting all of the requirements of Rule
23(e) and the PLRA.  The Judge overruled the objections to the
proposed settlement filed by members of the Plaintiff class are not
well taken.

The Judge granted the parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of
the Second Revised Settlement Agreement, and denied as moot (i) the
Parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Revised Settlement
Agreement, and (ii) Joint Motion and Memorandum of Law for Approval
of a Modification to Paragraph 12 of the Revised Settlement
Agreement.

In light of the fact that the Second Revised Settlement Agreement
constitutes the entire set of obligations and duties necessary for
Defendants' full release from this litigation and all attendant
Court orders in both the Duran and Klatt lawsuits, Judge Khalsa
also denied as moot the following motions: (1) the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Remedial Relief Regarding
Violations of the Court's Stipulated Orders; (2) the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Declaratory, Injunctive and Remedial Relief at
Northwestern New Mexico Correctional Facility; and, (3) the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Remedial Relief
Regarding Violations of the 1991 Settlement Agreement at Western
New Mexico Correctional Facility.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/2u8ZyP from Leagle.com.

Dwight Duran, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra Freedman Smith,
Law Office of Alexandra Freedman Smith, LLC, David C. Fathi, ACLU
National Prison Project, pro hac vice, Katherine Loewe, Law Firm
of
Ryan J. Villa, Mark H. Donatelli, Rothstein Law Firm, Nicholas T.
Davis -- Nick.Davis@tklaw.com -- Law Office of Philip B. Davis,
Peter Cubra, Law Office of Peter Cubra & Philip B. Davis, Philip
B.
Davis, Attorney at Law.

Susana Martinez, Governor, Defendant, represented by Jennifer
Saavedra, New Mexico Attorney General's Office, Mark F. Swanson,
New Mexico Attorney General, Olga Serafimova, Office of the
Attorney General, Rebecca C. Branch, New Mexico Attorney General's
Office, David W. Arnold, Nathan & Roberts, M. Victoria Amada,
Office of the Attorney General & Vincent M. Nathan, Nathan &
Roberts.


NEW ORLEANS, LA: Lassair Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC LASSAIR ET AL. v. NEW ORLEANS CITY ET AL.
SECTION: "H"(1), Civil Action No. 19-11377 (E.D. La.), Judge Jane
Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana granted (i) the City of New Orleans's Motion to
Dismiss, and and (ii) ARS Aleut Remediation, LLC and ARS
International, LLC's Motion to Dismiss.

The case arises out of the remediation of radioactive materials
detected in the soil near Lowerline and Edinburg Streets in New
Orleans, Louisiana.  The Defendants are the City of New Orleans and
its remediation contractors, ARS Aleut Remediation and ARS
International.  

The Plaintiffs are nearby home and business owners who allege that
they suffered physical, emotional, and financial damages as a
result of the Defendants' failure to timely inform them of the
contaminant, relocate them during the remediation, provide them
with protective gear, or inform them of the risks of exposure.  The
Plaintiffs bring claims arising under state tort law and assert
class action allegations.

The Defendants removed the suit to the Louisiana District Court
asserting both federal question and diversity jurisdiction.  They
now move for dismissal arguing that the Price-Anderson Act ("PAA")
provides the exclusive cause of action for the Plaintiffs' claims
and completely preempts the state law causes of action they attempt
to bring.  They further argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to
state a claim under the PAA, and their claims should therefore be
dismissed.  The Plaintiffs oppose, arguing that the PAA is
inapplicable.

Judge Milazzo finds that the PAA's history indicates that Congress
passed the Act to improve the manageability of complex litigation,
to ensure that liabilities arising from large nuclear incidents
don't shutter the nuclear industry, and to guarantee compensation
for victims who otherwise might be left trying to squeeze damages
out of firms bankrupted by enormous awards.  The Plaintiffs do not
allege that the Defendants are NRC licensees, Department of Energy
contractors, or engaged in the nuclear industry in any way.

Indeed, the Plaintiffs do not allege that the Defendants are
responsible for the Radium 226 found in the subsoil.  The Complaint
does not indicate who is responsible for the soil contamination or
even how the soil came to be contaminated.  Rather, the
contamination was detected by Defendant City of New Orleans while
scanning for security threats in preparation for hosting the 2013
Super Bowl.  The Defendants then endeavored to clean up and
remediate the area.  The application of the PAA to these facts does
not seem to further its clearly expressed purposes.  Alas, the
Court cannot ignore the PAA's unambiguous language and must hold
that the Plaintiffs have alleged a nuclear incident despite its
reservations.

The Defendants next argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege
a claim under the PAA because they do not allege the violation of a
federal standard of care.  In so arguing, they correctly point out
that the Supreme Court has made clear that federal law completely
occupies the field of nuclear safety.  In light of this, other
courts have held that federal regulations must provide the sole
measure of the Defendants' duty in a public liability cause of
action

The Plaintiff does not offer any argument to the contrary.  The
Complaint alleges only that the Defendants breached their duty to
warn, protect, and inform them of the risk of exposure to hazardous
materials.  Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs fail
to allege a federal duty breached by the Defendants, and therefore,
have not sufficiently alleged a claim under the PAA.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Malazzo grants the Defendants'
Motions, and dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims.  The Plaintiffs may
amend their Complaint without delay to the extent that they can
remedy the deficiencies identified.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 18, 2020 Order &
Reasons is available at https://is.gd/uC0o5v from Leagle.com.

Eric Lassair, Patricia Lassair & Telejacks & Things, Inc.,
Plaintiffs, represented by Suzette Peychaud Bagneris --
sbagneris@bagnerislawfirm.com -- Bagneris Firm, LLC, Emile Anthony
Bagneris, III, The Bagneris Firm, Madro Bandaries --
madro@banderieslaw.com -- Madro Bandaries, PLC & Steven Joseph
Rando, Law Offices of Steven J. Rando, LLC.

ARS Aleut Remediation LLC & ARS International, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Robert E. Dille, Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson &
Tardy LLC & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson &
Tardy LLC.

New Orleans City, Defendant, represented by Michael J. Laughlin,
City Attorney's Office, Churita H. Hansell, City Attorney's Office,
Corwin St. Raymond , City Attorney's Office, Donesia Diane Turner,
City of New Orleans Law Deptment & Sunni Jones LeBeouf, City of New
Orleans Law Deptment.


NEW YORK: Yang Sues NYSBOE Over Nixed Democratic Primary Election
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Yang, Jonathan Herzog, Hellen Suh, Brian Vogel, Shlomo
Small, Alison Hwang, Kristen Medeiros and Dr. Roger Green,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New
York State Board of Elections, Case No. 1:20-cv-03325-AT (S.D.N.Y.,
April 28, 2020), arises from NYS BOE commissioners' decision to
cancel entirely the June 23, 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary,
while allowing the other elections to continue.

The lawsuit is brought on an emergency basis under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure seeking to establish the fundamental principle that
in a democracy there is no right more important than the right to
vote.

Due to the unprecedented and tragic nature of the Covid-19
pandemic, the New York Democratic Presidential Primary, originally
scheduled for April 28, 2020, was postponed until June 23, 2020, so
that it would coincide with numerous congressional, State Senate,
State Assembly and other local elections and, therefore, minimize
the threat to the health and safety of New York voters and election
workers. These non-presidential elections are not being cancelled
by the NYS BOE, only the Presidential primary, says the complaint.

Rather than allow New York Democratic Party voters to vote by mail
(as the State is allowing for congressional and other elections
pursuant to Executive Order 202.15), on April 27, 2020, the New
York State Board of Elections' commissioners voted unanimously to
cancel entirely the June 23, 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary,
while allowing the other elections to continue.

The Plaintiffs contend that the unprecedented and unwarranted move
by the NYS BOE infringes their rights and all New York State
Democratic Party voters, of which there are estimated to be more
than six million, as it fundamentally denies them the right to
choose the next candidate for the office of President of the United
States.

NYS BOE is a bipartisan agency of the New York state government
within the New York State Executive Department responsible for
enforcement and administration of election-related laws.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Mead Kurzon, Esq.
          KURZON KOHEN LLP
          305 Broadway, FL 7
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: 212-203-8918
          E-mail: Jeff@Kurzon.com


NORRED & ASSOCIATES: McGinnis Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Merzier McGinnis, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. NORRED & ASSOCIATES, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100,
Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV18453 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May
14, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Labor Code Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004.

The Plaintiff seeks unpaid wages to compensate employees for all
hours worked at minimum wage rate and/or overtime which were not
paid wages; wages for workdays the Defendants failed to provide
adequate meal periods; wages for workdays Defendants failed to
provide adequate rest periods; statutory penalties for failure to
provide accurate and complete wage statements; waiting time
penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely
pay former employees all earned and unpaid wages; penalties for
failing to indemnify for employment related expenses; applicable
civil penalties; injunctive relief and other equitable relief,
reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in a non-exempt
position.

NORRED & ASSOCIATES, INC. is authorized to do business within the
State of California, and is doing business in the State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Joshua M. Webster, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                 jwebster@lelawfirm.com


NORWEGIAN AIR: Greaves Suit Demands COVID-19 Ticket Cash Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY GREAVES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NORWEGIAN AIR SHUTTLE ASA, a foreign corporation, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02121-EK-CLP (E.D.N.Y., May 9, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant for its refusal to provide contractually
guaranteed full cash refunds for cancelled flights to passengers
due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has reprehensibly
extracted maximum capital from customers, while padding its own
balance sheets. The Defendant's innocent customers are now left
holding the bag, he claims.

In lieu of contractually guaranteed refunds, the Defendant has, at
best, required the Plaintiff and the Class to accept devalued,
expiring flight coupons for use on its own airline that carry
substantially less or no value to the Plaintiff and the Class
during this uncertain time, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for breach of
contract and to seek an order from this Court requiring the
Defendant to discontinue the illegal practice of issuing coupons in
lieu of refunds to any Class Member who has not requested coupons.

Norwegian Air is a low-cost international airline that carries
millions of passengers and generates billions in revenue on an
annual basis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
          David R. Dubin, Esq.
          LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
          975 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Telephone: 313 392-0015
          Facsimile: 313 392-0025
          E-mail: ddubin@ldclassaction.com
                  ncoulson@ldclassaction.com


OHIO SECURITY: Hirbod Wants to Receive Proper Insurance Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hirbod H. Rowshan, DDS, P.S., d/b/a Center for Oral and
Maxillofacial Surgery and Implantology, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00730 (W.D. Wash., May 14, 2020), is
brought against the Defendant to ensure that the Plaintiff and
other policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they
are entitled and for which they paid.

Due to COVID-19 crisis and a state-ordered mandated closure, the
Plaintiff cannot provide dental services. The Plaintiff intended to
rely on its business insurance to maintain business income in case
of an insured loss. The Defendant Ohio Security issued one or more
insurance policies to the Plaintiff, including Commercial Protector
Policy with Business Owners Coverage Form and related endorsements,
insuring the Plaintiff's property and business and other coverages,
with effective dates of October 1, 2019, to October 1, 2020.

The Plaintiff's business property includes property owned and/or
leased by the Plaintiff and used for general business purposes for
the specific purpose of dental and other business activities. The
Defendant Ohio Security's insurance policy issued to the Plaintiff
promises to pay the Plaintiff for "direct physical loss of or
physical damage to" covered property. The Plaintiff paid all
premiums for the coverage when due.

By order of Governor Jay Inslee, dentists, including the Plaintiff,
have been prohibited from providing services but for urgent and
emergency procedures. The Plaintiff asserts that its property has
sustained direct physical loss and/or damage related to COVID-19
and/or the proclamations and orders. The Plaintiff's property will
continue to sustain direct physical loss or damage covered by the
Ohio Security policy or policies, including business interruption,
extra expense, interruption by civil authority, and other expenses.
The Plaintiff adds that the property cannot be used for its
intended purposes.

As a result, the Plaintiff has experienced and will experience loss
covered by the Ohio Security policy or policies, according to the
complaint. By letter dated April 6, 2020, the Defendant sent a
letter to the Plaintiff advising that its loss would not likely be
covered under the Ohio Security policy. The Defendant intends to
deny, has denied and/or will deny coverage to the Plaintiff and to
other similarly situated policyholders.

Hirbod H. Rowshan, DDS P.S., owns and operates a dental business,
offering services of oral and maxillofacial surgery and
implantology.

Ohio Security Insurance Company is an insurance carrier
incorporated and domiciled in New Hampshire, with its principal
place of business in Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy Williams Derry, Esq.
          Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
          Ian S. Birk, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Irene M. Hecht, Esq.
          Maureen Falecki, Esq.
          Nathan L. Nanfelt, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 623-1900
          Fax: (206) 623-3384
          Email: awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
                 lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                 ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
                 gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                 ihecht@kellerrohrback.com
                 mfalecki@kellerrohrback.com
                 nnanfelt@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Alison Chase, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          801 Garden Street, Suite 301
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Phone: (805) 456-1496
          Fax: (805) 456-1497
          Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com


OPERA LTD: Continues to Defend Brown Class Suit in SDNY
-------------------------------------------------------
Opera Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, Brown v. Opera
Limited. et al., Case No. 20-cv-674 (S.D.N.Y.).

In January 2020, the company and certain of its directors and
officers were named as defendants in a putative class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York: Brown v. Opera Limited. et al., Case No. 20-cv-674
(S.D.N.Y.).

The complaint asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that the Company made material misstatements
and/or omissions during the period from July 27, 2018 through
January 15, 2020. The allegations relate to statements regarding
the Company sustainable growth and market opportunity for its
browser applications and the alleged business practices of certain
loan service applications owned or controlled by the Company.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of all person and
entities who purchased or acquired the Company's (a) American
depositary shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company’s initial public offering commenced on or about July 27,
2018 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (b) Opera securities between
July 27, 2018 and January 15, 2020, both dates inclusive.

Several individuals have sought to be appointed as the lead
plaintiff to represent the putative class, but no lead plaintiff
has been appointed yet.

Opera said, "As the case remains in its preliminary stages, we
express no opinion on the likelihood of any unfavorable outcome or
any estimate of the amount or range of any potential loss. The
Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims."

Opera Limited operates as a web application development company.
The Company designs and develops web browsers for mobile phones and
PCs that enable Internet users to discover and access digital
contents. Opera serves customers worldwide. The company is based in
Oslo, Norway.


P & Z CAROLINA: Ditsworth Seeks Minimum and OT Wages for Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
REBECKA DITSWORTH, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. P & Z CAROLINA PIZZA, LLC d/b/a PAPA JOHNS, CHARLES H.
ZOELLERS, and DANIEL B PATTERSON, Case No. 1:20-cv-00084-GNS (W.D.
Ky., May 8, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime hours under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Kentucky
Revised Statutes, North Carolina Gen. Stat., and Kentucky common
law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employ delivery drivers,
who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items
to their customers. However, the Plaintiff contends that instead of
reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs
of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendants use a flawed
method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an
unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the
expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause
their wages to fall below the minimum wage during some or all
workweeks.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from December 2018
through February 2019 as a delivery driver at their Papa John's
stores located in Russellville, Kentucky.

The Defendants operate numerous Papa John's Pizza franchise stores.
Mr. Zoeller is an owner and officer of the P&Z.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David O'Brien Suetholz, Esq.
          Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          515 Park Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40208
          Telephone: (502) 636-4333
          E-mail: davids@bsjfirm.com
                  joeyl@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          Jay Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
          E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com


PACIFIC FERTILITY: No Extension of Trial Schedule in Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California denied the Third-Party Defendants' Request to Extend
Class Certification Briefing Schedule and Vacate Discovery and
Trial Deadlines in the case captioned IN RE PACIFIC FERTILITY
CENTER LITIGATION, Case No. 18-cv-01586-JSC, (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs filed the putative class action against Pacific
Fertility Center (Pacific Fertility), Prelude Fertility, Inc.
(Prelude), and Chart Industries (Chart) alleging various state law
claims.

The third-party defendants' request to amend the scheduling order
is two-fold.

First, the third-party defendants seek a three-month extension of
the briefing schedule on Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. According to the third-party defendants, such an
extension is necessary because they need to evaluate how the motion
for class certification may affect their claims and defenses, and
without an extension they will be prejudiced because the motion
will affect Plaintiffs' claims against Chart, which in turn will
affect the scope of Chart's claims against Third-Party Defendants
for contribution and equitable/implied indemnity.

Neither of these arguments demonstrates good cause for adjusting
the class certification briefing schedule, the Court notes.
Plaintiffs do not seek certification of any claims against the
third-party defendants nor is it apparent that there is anything
for the third-party defendants to oppose with respect to class
certification.  

Second, the third-party defendants seek an extension of the
discovery and trial schedule.

However, the third-party defendants do not specify either how much
time they will need or what discovery they need, the Court points
out. Absent such information, the third-party defendants cannot
establish cause, let alone good cause, for modifying the discovery
and trial schedule.   

The third-party defendants have not shown that they will not have
adequate time to conduct discovery following a decision on their
motion to dismiss, especially given that their counsel has attended
all of the depositions to date and is thus well positioned to know
what particular additional discovery might be necessary.  

The third-party defendants have failed to demonstrate good cause
for modifying the Court's scheduling orders. The motion to amend is
therefore denied, the Court rules.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ros3xq2 from Leagle.com

A.B., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
C.D., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
(CV 18-2298)) & E.F., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated (CV 18-2298)), Plaintiffs, represented by Eric
H. Gibbs - ehg@classlawgroup.com - Gibbs Law Group LLP, Sarah Robin
London - slondon@lchb.com - Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP,
Adam E. Polk  - apolk@girardsharp.com - Girard Sharp LLP, Christina
C. Sharp - dsharp@girardsharp.com - Girard Sharp LLP, Elizabeth J.
Cabraser - ecabraser@lchb.com - Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
LLP, Joseph G. Sauder  - jgs@sstriallawyers.com - Sauder Schelkopf
LLC, pro hac vice, Lexi Joy Hazam, Esq. , Lieff Cabraser Heimann
and Bernstein, LLP, 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor, San Francisco,
CA 94111, Steven M. Tindall - smt@classlawgroup.com - Gibbs Law
Group LLP, Tiseme Gabriella Zegeye , Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein, LLP, Embarcadero Center West275 Battery Street, 29th
Floor San Francisco, CA 94111- 3339 & Daniel C. Girard -
dgirard@girardsharp.com - Girard Sharp LLP.

Pacific Fertility Center, Defendant, represented by Joseph Spalding
Picchi - jpicchi@glattys.com - Galloway, Lucchese, Everson & Picchi
A Professional Corporation, Aaron Thomas Schultz -
aschultz@glattys.com - Galloway, Lucchese, Everson & Picchi &
Sukhwinder K. Bajwa  - sbajwa@glattys.com - Galloway, Lucchese,
Everson, Picchi.


PET SUPERMARKET: Illegally Sells NaturVet Soft Chews, Ferron Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MELODY FERRON v. PET SUPERMARKET, INC., A Florida For Profit
Corporation, Case No. CACE-20-0071-62 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty.,
April 28, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated against the Defendant for its unlawful
advertisement and selling of NaturVet (TM) Hemp Allergy Aid Plus
Hemp Seed Dog Soft Chews.

The Plaintiff contends that the Product is an unapproved new animal
drug and cannot lawfully be sold.

The Product's packaging, as well as the Defendant's advertising and
marketing of the Product, makes clear that the Product's contents
are intended to treat, mitigate, or prevent disease and/or are
intended to affect the structure or any function of the body;
specifically to help with skin moisture, respiratory health, and to
treat, mitigate and/or prevent occasional or seasonal allergies,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual consumer over the age of eighteen,
who resides in Broward County, Florida, seeking injunctive relief
and damages.

Pet Supermarket was a retailer selling, marketing, and distributing
the Product.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard W. Rubinstein, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN
          1281 N. Ocean Dr., Apt. 198
          Singer Island, FL 33404
          Telephone: 832-715-2788
          Facsimile: 561 -688-0630
          E-mail: howardr@pdq.net


PET SUPERMARKET: Unlawfully Sells Dog Soft Chews, Newell Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBYNE NEWELL v. PET SUPERMARKET, INC., A Florida For Profit
Corporation, Case No. CACE-20-0071-63 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty.,
April 28, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated against the Defendant for its unlawful
advertisement and selling of NaturVet (TM) Hemp Allergy Aid Plus
Hemp Seed Dog Soft Chews.

The Plaintiff contends that the Product is an unapproved new animal
drug and cannot lawfully be sold.

The Product's packaging, as well as the Defendant's advertising and
marketing of the Product, makes clear that the Product's contents
are intended to treat, mitigate, or prevent disease and/or are
intended to affect the structure or any function of the body;
specifically to help with skin moisture, respiratory health, and to
treat, mitigate and/or prevent occasional or seasonal allergies,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual consumer over the age of eighteen,
who resides in Broward County, Florida, seeking injunctive relief
and damages.

Pet Supermarket was a retailer selling, marketing, and distributing
the Product.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard W. Rubinstein, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN
          1281 N. Ocean Dr., Apt. 198
          Singer Island, FL 33404
          Telephone: 832-715-2788
          Facsimile: 561 -688-0630
          E-mail: howardr@pdq.net


PG&E CORP: Amended Vataj Complaint Not Yet Received
---------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the corporation had not
yet been served with the amended complaint filed in the class
action suit entitled,  Vataj v. Johnson et al.

On October 25, 2019, a purported securities class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, entitled Vataj v. Johnson et al. The complaint named as
defendants a current director and certain current and former
officers of PG&E Corporation.

Neither PG&E Corporation nor Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the
Utility) was named as a defendant.

The complaint alleged materially false and misleading statements
regarding PG&E Corporation's wildfire prevention and safety
protocols and policies, including regarding the Utility's public
safety power shutoffs, that allegedly resulted in losses and
damages to holders of PG&E Corporation's securities.

The complaint asserted claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and sought unspecified monetary relief,
attorneys’ fees and other costs.

On February 3, 2020, the District Court granted a stipulation
appointing Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds, Ironworkers Locals
40,361 & 417 Union Security Funds and Robert Allustiarti co-lead
plaintiffs and approving the selection of the plaintiffs' counsel,
and further ordered the parties to submit a proposed schedule by
February 13, 2020. On February 20, 2020, the District Court issued
a scheduling order that required the amended complaint to be filed
by April 17, 2020.

On April 17, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting the same claims.

The amended complaint adds PG&E Corporation and a former officer of
PG&E Corporation as defendants, and no longer asserts claims
against two officers of PG&E Corporation previously named in the
action.

As of April 30, 2020, PG&E Corporation had not yet been served with
this complaint.

PG&E said, "Given the early stages of the litigations, including
but not limited to the fact that defendants’ motions to dismiss
have not yet been decided and no discovery has occurred in the
consolidated class action litigation or, the de-energization class
action, PG&E Corporation and the Utility are unable to reasonably
estimate the amount of any potential loss."

PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.


PG&E CORP: Appeal Filed in Power Shutoff Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the dismissal of a
class action suit involving Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) is
under appeal.

On December 19, 2019, a complaint was filed in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California naming
PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the
Utility).

The plaintiff seeks certification of a class consisting of all
California residents and business owners who had their power shut
off by the Utility during the October 9, October 23, October 26,
October 28, or November 20, 2019 power outages and any subsequent
voluntary outages occurring during the course of litigation.

The plaintiff alleges that the necessity for the October and
November 2019 power shutoff events was caused by the Utility's
negligence in failing to properly maintain its electrical lines and
surrounding vegetation.

The complaint seeks up to $2.5 billion in special and general
damages, punitive and exemplary damages and injunctive relief to
require the Utility to properly maintain and inspect its power
grid.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe the allegations are
without merit and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

On January 21, 2020, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint or in the alternative strike the
class action allegations. The motion to dismiss and strike was
heard by the Bankruptcy Court on March 10, 2020, and on April 3,
2020, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order dismissing the action
without leave to amend, finding that the action was preempted under
the California Public Utilities Code.

On March 30, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion granting
the Utility's motion to dismiss this class action. The court held
that plaintiff's class action claims are preempted as a matter of
law by section 1759 of the California Public Utilities Code and
thus plaintiffs could not pursue civil damages.

The court stated that "any claim for damages caused by PSPS events
approved by the CPUC, even if based on pre-existing events that may
or may not have contributed to the necessity of the PSPS events,
would interfere with the California Public Utilities Commission's
(CPUC's) policy-making decisions."

On April 6, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the
Bankruptcy Court decision dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff has
elected to have the appeal heard by the District Court, rather than
the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Plaintiff filed a designation of
the record and statement of the issues on April 20, 2020, and the
Utility will have until May 4, 2020, 14 days thereafter, to file a
designation of any additional items.

PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.


PG&E CORP: Appeal Filed in Wild Fire-Related Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs in the
class action suit entitled, In re PG&E Corporation Securities
Litigation, have taken an appeal regarding the denial of their
motion seeking approval from the Bankruptcy Court to treat its
proof of claim as a class proof of claim.  

In June 2018, two purported securities class actions were filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, naming PG&E Corporation and certain of its current and
former officers as defendants, entitled David C. Weston v. PG&E
Corporation, et al. and Jon Paul Moretti v. PG&E Corporation, et
al., respectively.  

The complaints alleged material misrepresentations and omissions
related to, among other things, vegetation management and
transmission line safety in various PG&E Corporation public
disclosures. The complaints asserted claims under Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought unspecified monetary
relief, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.

Both complaints identified a proposed class period of April 29,
2015 to June 8, 2018. On September 10, 2018, the court consolidated
both cases and the litigation is now denominated In re PG&E
Corporation Securities Litigation. The court also appointed the
Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico as lead
plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on November 9,
2018. After the plaintiff requested leave to amend its complaint to
add allegations regarding the 2018 Camp fire, the plaintiff filed a
second amended consolidated complaint on December 14, 2018.

Due to the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, PG&E Corporation
and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the Utility) filed a notice
on February 1, 2019, reflecting that the proceedings are
automatically stayed pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy
Code.

On February 15, 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a
complaint in Bankruptcy Court against the plaintiff seeking
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to extend the stay to
the claims alleged against the individual officer defendants.

On February 22, 2019, a purported securities class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, entitled York County on behalf of the York County
Retirement Fund, et al. v. Rambo, et al. (the "York County
Action").

The complaint names as defendants certain current and former
officers and directors, as well as the underwriters of four public
offerings of notes from 2016 to 2018. Neither PG&E Corporation nor
the Utility is named as a defendant.

The complaint alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in
connection with the note offerings related to, among other things,
PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's vegetation management and
wildfire safety measures. The complaint asserts claims under
Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and seeks
unspecified monetary relief, attorneys' fees and other costs, and
injunctive relief.

On May 7, 2019, the York County Action was consolidated with In re
PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation.

On May 28, 2019, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
actions filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint,
which includes the claims asserted in the previously-filed actions
and names as defendants PG&E Corporation, the Utility, certain
current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters.

The action remains stayed as to PG&E Corporation and the Utility.
On August 28, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court denied PG&E Corporation's
and the Utility's request to extend the stay to the claims against
the officer, director, and underwriter defendants.

On October 4, 2019, the officer, director, and underwriter
defendants filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint,
which motions are currently under submission with the District
Court.

The named plaintiffs in the consolidated securities actions filed
proofs of claim with the Bankruptcy Court on or before the bar date
that reflect their securities litigation claims against PG&E
Corporation and the Utility.

On December 9, 2019, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated
securities actions filed a motion seeking approval from the
Bankruptcy Court to treat its proof of claim as a class proof of
claim.

On February 27, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order denying
the motion, but extending the bar date for putative class members
to file proofs of claim until April 16, 2020.

On March 6, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal regarding
the denial of their motion.

PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Awaits Filing of Amended Complaint in Hogan Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2020, that Patrick Hogan has not
yet filed a Second Amended Complaint in his class action suit.

On October 10, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and
a putative class of persons who purchased shares of Pilgrim's Pride
Corporation's (PPC's) stock between February 21, 2014 and October
6, 2016, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado against PPC and its named executive
officers.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that PPC's SEC filings
contained statements that were rendered materially false and
misleading by PPC's failure to disclose that (1) PPC colluded with
several of its industry peers to fix prices in the broiler-chicken
market as alleged in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust
Litigation, (2) its conduct constituted a violation of federal
antitrust laws, (3) PPC's revenues during the class period were the
result of illegal conduct and (4) that PPC lacked effective
internal control over financial reporting.

The complaint also states that PPC's industry was anticompetitive
and seeks compensatory damages.

On April 4, 2017, the Court appointed another stockholder, George
James Fuller, as lead plaintiff. On May 11, 2017, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, which extended the end date of the
putative class period to November 17, 2017.

PPC and the other defendants moved to dismiss on June 12, 2017, and
the plaintiff filed its opposition on July 12, 2017. PPC and the
other defendants filed their reply on August 1, 2017.

On March 14, 2018, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint
without prejudice and issued final judgment in favor of PPC and the
other defendants. On April 11, 2018, the plaintiff moved for
reconsideration of the Court's decision and for permission to file
a Second Amended Complaint. PPC and the other defendants filed a
response to the plaintiff's motion on April 25, 2018.

On November 19, 2018, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration and granted plaintiff leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint.

Pilgrim's Pride said, "As of the date of these financial
statements, the plaintiff has not yet filed a Second Amended
Complaint."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Continues to Defend Plant Workers' Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2020, that the U.S. District Court
for the District of Marland overseeing employees' class suits has
issued a series of Standing Orders related to the exigent
circumstances created by COVID-19, which extended filing deadlines
by 84 days, including the deadlines for the response briefings
related to defendants' motions to dismiss.

Between August 30, 2019 and October 16, 2019, four purported class
action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland against Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (PPC) and
a number of other chicken producers, as well as WMS (Webber, Meng,
Sahl and Company) and Agri Stats.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of processing
plant production and maintenance workers ("Plant Workers").

They allege that the defendants conspired to fix and depress the
compensation paid to Plant Workers in violation of the Sherman Act
and seek damages from January 1, 2009 to the present.

The four cases are Jien v. Perdue Farms, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-2521;
Earnest v. Perdue Farms, Inc. et al., Case No. 19-cv-02680;
Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 19-cv-02960; and
Avila v. Perdue Farms, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-cv-03018
(together, the "Wages Litigation").

On November 12, 2019, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
four cases for pretrial purposes. The defendants (including PPC)
jointly moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on November 22,
2019.

Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs informed the defendants and the
Court they would be amending their complaint, which they did on
December 20, 2019. The consolidated amended complaint asserts
largely similar allegations to the pleadings in the consolidated
complaint extended to include more class members and turkey
processors as well as chicken.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on March 2, 2020, with oppositions originally due on
April 24, 2020 and replies on May 21, 2020.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has issued a
series of Standing Orders related to the exigent circumstances
created by COVID-19, which extended filing deadlines by 84 days,
including the deadlines for the response briefings related to
defendants' motions to dismiss.

PPC believes it has strong defenses in each of the above
litigations and intends to contest them vigorously. PPC cannot
predict the outcome of these actions nor when they will be
resolved. If the plaintiffs were to prevail in any of these
litigations, PPC could be liable for damages, which could be
material and could adversely affect its financial condition or
results of operations.

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Dates in Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig. Moved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 29, 2020, that the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois has issued General
Orders in re Coronavirus ("COVID-19") Public Emergency extending
all deadlines in all civil cases.

Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of
purported federal class action lawsuits styled as In re Broiler
Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 were filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against PPC and 13 other producers by and on behalf of direct and
indirect purchasers of broiler chickens alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust and unfair competition laws.

The complaints seek, among other relief, treble damages for an
alleged conspiracy among defendants to reduce output and increase
prices of broiler chickens from the period of January 2008 to the
present.

The class plaintiffs have filed three consolidated amended
complaints: one on behalf of direct purchasers and two on behalf of
distinct groups of indirect purchasers.

Between December 8, 2017 and October 22, 2019, 32 individual direct
action complaints (Affiliated Foods, Inc., et al. v. Claxton
Poultry Farms, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-08850; Sysco Corp. v.
Tyson Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00700; U.S. Foods Inc.
v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00702; Action Meat
Distributors, Inc., et al. v. Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-03471; Jetro Holdings, LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04000; Associated Grocers of the South,
Inc., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-4616;
The Kroger Co., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-04534; Ahold Delhaize USA, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05351; Samuels as Trustee In Bankruptcy for
Central Grocers, Inc. et al., v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a
Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05341; W. Lee
Flowers & Company, Inc. v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton
Poultry Farms, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05345; BJ's Wholesale
Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05877;
United Supermarkets LLC, et al. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:18-cv-06693; Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Koch
Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-06316 (transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on September 17,
2018, following Defendants' successful motion to transfer);
Shamrock Foods Company, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:18-cv-7284; Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al. v. Koch Foods,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00245; Quirch Foods, LLC, f/k/a
Quirch Foods Co. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-08511; Sherwood Food Distributors, L.L.C., et al. v. Tyson
Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00354, Hooters of America,
LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00390, Darden
Restaurants, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00530; Associated Grocers, Inc., et al. v. Norman W. Fries,
Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00638;
Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01283; Conagra Brands, Inc., et al. v. Tyson
Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02190, Giant Eagle, Inc. v.
Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-02758; Save Mart Supermarkets v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02805; Walmart Inc., et al. v. Pilgrim’s
Pride Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03915 (transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas on
June 11, 2019, following Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to transfer);
Services Group of America, Inc. v. Tyson Food, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-04194; Restaurants of America, Inc., et al. v. Tyson
Foods, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-04824; Anaheim Wings, d/b/a Hooters
of Anaheim, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., No. 19- cv-05229;
Amigos Meat Distributors, LP, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al.,
No. 19-cv-05424; PJ Food Service, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et
al., No. 19-cv-6141; The Golub Corporation, et al. v. Norman W.
Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, et al., Case No.
19-cv-06955; and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Koch Foods, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-01605 (transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico) were filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by individual
direct purchaser entities naming PPC as a defendant, the
allegations of which largely mirror those in the class action
complaints.

The Court has ordered the parties to coordinate scheduling of the
direct action complaints with the class complaints with any
necessary modifications to reflect time of filing. Discovery will
be consolidated. On June 21, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice
(the "DOJ") filed a motion to intervene and stay discovery in the
In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation for a period of six
months.

Following a hearing on June 27, 2019, on June 28, 2019, the Court
granted the government's motion to intervene, ordering a limited
stay first until September 27, 2019, and then, following a
subsequent request for an extension by the DOJ, to June 27, 2020.
On July 1, 2019, the DOJ issued a subpoena to PPC in connection
with its investigation. PPC is currently in the process of
complying with the subpoena.

On December 18, 2019, the Court reset the date for the lifting of
the stay to March 31, 2020.

On January 29, 2020, the Court issued a scheduling order through
trial, which contemplates class certification briefing and related
expert reports proceeding from June 18, 2020 to November 25, 2020,
the close of all merits fact discovery on December 18, 2020, and
summary judgment briefing and related expert reports proceeding
from January 15, 2021 to August 10, 2021. The Court has set a trial
date of April 4, 2022.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
issued General Orders in re Coronavirus ("COVID-19") Public
Emergency on March 17, 2020, March 20, 2020 and March 30, 2020,
which extended all deadlines in all civil cases first by 21 and
then 28 days.

Further revisions to the schedule are anticipated in the coming
weeks.

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.


PRATT INSTITUTE: Faces Hewitt Suit Over COVID-19 Tuition Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNA HEWITT and KRISTEN THOMAS on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. PRATT INSTITUTE, Case No.
1:20-cv-02007-MKB-SJB (E.D.N.Y., May 1, 2020), is brought on behalf
of all people, who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020
academic semester at Pratt Institute, and who, because of its
response to the COVID-19 pandemic, lost the benefit of the
education for which they paid, and/or the services for which their
fees were paid, without having their tuition and fees refunded to
them.

Pratt announced via news release that because of the global
COVID-19 pandemic, all in-person classes would be suspended
effective March 12, 2020. The announcement informed students that
all classes would instead be held remotely through online formats.
Since March 12, 2020, Pratt has not held any in-person classes. The
closure of Pratt's campuses has been extended through the end of
Spring Semester 2020. Classes that have continued have only been
offered in an online format, with no in-person instruction, says
the complaint.

As a result of the closure of the Defendant's facilities, the
Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant has not delivered the
educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that
they and the putative class contracted and paid for.

Through this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs seek, for themselves and Class
members, the Defendant's disgorgement of the pro-rated portion of
tuition and fees, proportionate to the amount of time that remained
in the Spring Semester 2020 when classes moved online and campus
services ceased being provided.

Pratt is a large private university, with an enrollment of
approximately 5,000 students. The university operates three New
York campuses in Brooklyn, New York City, and Utica. Pratt offers
more than 25 degree options for undergraduate students as well as
more than 26 graduate and certificate programs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com
                  jmarchese@bursor.com
                  swestcot@bursor.com


PRINCE GEORGE, MD: Seeks Dismissal of Jail Coronavirus Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
AP/WJZ reports that one of Maryland's largest counties on April 26
asked a federal judge to throw out a civil rights group's lawsuit
that claims its jail has failed to stop an "uncontrolled"
coronavirus outbreak or properly care for infected prisoners.

The class-action suit filed on April 21 by Civil Rights Corps
claims Prince George's County Jail prisoners who test positive for
COVID-19 are isolated in cells with walls covered in feces, mucus
and blood.

"They are barely monitored and receive no real treatment," the suit
says.

The Washington, D.C.-based group's suit asks the court to order the
immediate release of medically vulnerable prisoners. U.S. District
Judge Paula Xinis in Greenbelt, Maryland, instructed the county to
file a written response to the suit's claims before she rules.

In a court filing on April 26, attorneys for the county said jail
officials acted proactively to protect inmates and staff from the
virus.

Mary Lou McDonough, director of the county's corrections
department, "led the way" among correctional facilities in Maryland
to prepare for the COVID-19 pandemic, county officials wrote.

The county says the jail's average daily population has dropped
from 720 to 560 inmates since March 1, with 18 confirmed cases of
COVID-19 among the jail population.

None of the infected inmates have been hospitalized, and 10 of them
have fully recovered and returned to the jail's general population,
the county says.

McDonough is the only defendant named in the suit.

Civil Rights Corps has filed similar suits over conditions at jails
in Miami, Dallas, Chicago and Detroit.

For most people, the new coronavirus causes mild or moderate
symptoms, such as fever and cough that clear up in two to three
weeks.

For some, especially older adults and those with existing health
problems, it can cause more severe illness and even death. [GN]


PROGRESSIVE COMMERCIAL: Bids to Dismiss Shulman Fraud Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN SHULMAN, v. PROGRESSIVE COMMERCIAL CASUALTY
COMPANY, et al, Civil Action No. DKC 19-1709 (D. Md.), Judge
Deborah K. Chasanow of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland granted the motions to dismiss filed by both the
Individual Defendants and the Progressive Defendants.

Presently pending and ready for resolution in the putative class
action for defamation, legal malpractice, and fraud are the motions
to dismiss filed by Defendants Progressive Commercial Casualty Co.,
Progressive Insurance Co., Progressive Insurance, and United
Financial Casualty Co. ("Progressive Defendants"), and Kiran S.
Rosen, Camilla I. McFarlane, and Jeffrey Moffett ("Individual
Defendants").

On Dec. 23, 2016, SCMD, LLC and A&B Holdings, LLC ("Companies")
were sued in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.  The case
("Personal Injury Action") related to an alleged car accident.
Progressive, as the Companies' insurer, provided its own in-house
counsel, namely the Individual Defendants, to defend the Companies.
Mr. Shulman was not himself a party to the Personal Injury Action,
but, as one of the owners of the Companies, was asked, as the
corporate designee, to execute answers to interrogatories in the
course of the Personal Injury Action.

In those interrogatory answers, allegedly prepared at the behest of
Progressive and the Individual Defendants, Mr. Shulman denied that
the accident at the core of the Personal Injury Action ever
occurred.  The Progressive and the Individual Defendants then
changed strategy: on the eve of trial, the Defendants decided not
to contest liability.  Instead, they urged Mr. Shulman, again on
behalf of the Companies, to sign an affidavit accepting liability
for the accident.  

The Defendants persuaded Mr. Shulman to do so by telling him that,
were he not to sign the affidavit, "he" could be subject to damages
beyond his insurance limits.  Mr. Shulman alleges that he was
afraid of the contradictory nature of the interrogatories and the
affidavit: in the former, he denied that the accident ever
occurred, while in the latter, he accepted liability.  The
Defendants allegedly assuaged these fears by telling Mr. Shulman
that neither the interrogatories nor the affidavit would be
admissible at trial.  The Defendants, however, went on to provide
the affidavit to the Plaintiff's counsel in the Personal Injury
Action, and then failed to object when the Plaintiff's counsel used
these contradictory statements to call Mr. Shulman "dishonest and a
liar."

Mr. Shulman claims that he is the frequent target of vexatious
litigation and that his contradictory statements in the Personal
Injury Action threaten his credibility in future litigation,
opening him up potentially to millions of dollars in future
damages.

Mr. Shulman filed the case in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
County on May 1, 2019 as a putative class action, and the
Defendants removed it to the Court on June 11, 2019 under the Class
Action Fairness Act.  Progressive filed its motion to dismiss on
July 12, 2019, and the Individual Defendants filed their motion to
dismiss on the same day.  Mr. Shulman filed a single response in
opposition on Aug. 12, 2019, and each set of the Defendants has
replied.

The Plaintiff has alleged five counts against the Defendants: (1)
defamation, (2) legal malpractice, (3) fraud, (4) intentional
misrepresentation, and (5) respondeat superior.  All are deficient
and all will be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

Judge Chasanow finds that given the ambiguities surrounding the
actual "statement" on which the Plaintiff bases his defamation
claim, it is not clear from the face of the complaint that the
statute of limitations bars the cause of action.

To state a claim for legal malpractice under Maryland law, a
plaintiff must demonstrate (1) the attorney's employment, (2) the
attorney's neglect of a reasonable duty, and (3) loss to the client
proximately caused by that neglect of duty.  The Plaintiff does not
allege that he was a client of any of the Defendants; rather, he
asserts that he was an "owner" and the "corporate designee" of the
Companies, which themselves were clients of the Defendants.

The Court holds that where the company holds a right of action in
tort, that right does not extend to the company's owners.  Mr.
Shulman may not bring a legal malpractice claim against any of the
Defendants.  Mr. Shulman's arguments to the contrary are flawed. He
suggests first that because certain ethical rules forbid attorneys
from using methods of obtaining evidence that the attorney knows
violate the legal rights of a third person, the Individual
Defendants owed a duty to Mr. Shulman.  The Plaintiff can cite no
law to support this theory, and Maryland courts' continued use of
the strict privity rule flatly contradicts it.  

Next, given the flaws in Mr. Shulman's fraud and intentional
misrepresentation claims, these counts will be dismissed.  The
Plaintiff has not pleaded his claim with sufficient particularity.
Mr. Shulman asserts that the Individual Defendants told him that he
would be subject to significant financial damages, and that
Progressive would not protect him from that liability unless he
signed two contradictory statements.  Mr. Shulman baldly asserts
that these statements were made with the intention to defraud.  But
Mr. Shulman nowhere includes the time or place of these
misrepresentations; Mr. Shulman does not indicate who,
specifically, made the misrepresentations; and Mr. Shulman nowhere
indicates what the Defendants gained through the alleged fraud.
Finally, Mr. Shulman has neither alleged a cognizable theory of
damages, nor has he established that he had the "right to rely" on
the Defendants' statements.

Finally, the Plaintiff's final claim is for "respondeat superior."
The respondeat superior is not a freestanding cause of action.
Hence, the claim will be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Chasanow granted the motions to
dismiss filed by both the Individual Defendants and the Progressive
Defendants.  However, as the Plaintiff has stated that he intends
to file a motion for leave to amend and any subsequent amendment
would be his first, Mr. Shulman will be given an opportunity to
seek leave to amend his complaint.  Mr. Shulman is cautioned that
he should only seek amendments if he can validly allege additional
facts that will establish, consistent with this memorandum opinion,
that he is entitled to relief under these causes of action.  If no
motion is filed, the dismissal will become with prejudice.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/wwvCxT from Leagle.com.

Brian Shulman, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth Christopher
Gauvey, The Law Practice of Ken C. Gauvey, LLC.

Progressive Commerical Casualty Company, Progressive Insurance
Company, Progressive Insurance & United Financial Casualty Company,
Defendants, represented by Daniel R. Hodges -- hodges@ewmd.com --
Eccleston and Wolf PC.

Kiran Rosen, Camilla McFarlane & Jeffrey Moffet, Defendants,
represented by Bruce L. Marcus, Marcus Bonsib LLC & Sydney M.
Patterson, MarcusBonsib LLC.


PROLOGIS INC: McDonough & Yonchuk Suits Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
Prologis, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that Liberty Property Trust
continues to defend "McDonough Action" and "Yonchuk Action".

On February 4, 2020, Liberty Property Trust and Liberty Property
Limited Partnership (Liberty), Liberty OP and New Liberty Holdco
merged with and into Prologis, Inc., Prologis L.P., Prologis Merger
Sub and Prologis OP Merger Sub, pursuant to which, (i) an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of Liberty merged with and into Liberty,
with Liberty continuing as the surviving entity and an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of New Liberty Holdco (the "Company
Merger"), (ii) thereafter, New Liberty Holdco merged with and into
Prologis Merger Sub, with Prologis Merger Sub continuing as the
surviving entity and remaining a wholly owned subsidiary of
Prologis, Inc. (the "Topco Merger"), (iii) thereafter, Prologis,
Inc. and its applicable subsidiaries and Prologis Merger Sub caused
all of the outstanding equity interests of Liberty to be
contributed to Prologis L.P. in exchange for the issuance by
Prologis L.P. of Prologis L.P. common units to other subsidiaries
of Prologis, Inc. and (iv) thereafter, Prologis L.P. Merger Sub
merged with and into Liberty OP, with Liberty OP continuing as the
surviving entity and a wholly owned subsidiary of Prologis L.P.
(the "Partnership Merger" and, collectively with the Company Merger
and the Topco Merger, the "Mergers"). The total acquisition price
was approximately $13 billion through the issuance of equity based
on the value of the Prologis common stock issued using the closing
price on February 3, 2020 and the assumption of debt.

In connection with the Liberty Transaction and the related Form
S-4, on December 19, 2019, Liberty and Liberty's board of directors
were sued in a putative class action lawsuit, the McDonough Action,
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

On January 7, 2020, Liberty and the Liberty Board were sued in
another putative class action lawsuit, the Yonchuk Action, filed in
in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
in connection with the Liberty Transaction and the related Form
S-4.

The complaints in the McDonough Action and Yonchuk Action allege
that Liberty and the Liberty Board violated federal securities laws
by omitting material information from the Form S-4, rendering the
Form S-4 materially deficient.

In both outstanding actions, the plaintiffs seek, among other
things, (i) rescission of the transaction and/or (ii) damages, and
(iii) attorneys' fees and costs in connection with these lawsuits.


Prologis said, "Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot
be predicted with certainty, we believe that these lawsuits are
without merit and intend to defend against these actions
vigorously."

Prologis, Inc. is the global leader in logistics real estate with
afocus on high-barrier, high-growth markets. The company is based
in San Francisco, California.


R J VAN DRUNEN: Allen Civil Rights Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Tylisha Allen, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. R J Van Drunen &
Sons Inc., Case No. 2020-L-42, was removed from the Illinois
Circuit Court, Kankakee County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of Illinois (Urbana) on May 1, 2020.

The Central District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-02106-CSB-EIL to the proceeding.

The lawsuit demands $5 million in damages alleging violation of
civil rights-related laws. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Colin Stirling Bruce.

The Defendant produces fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon Michael Wise, Esq.
          Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE APLC
          818 Lafayette Avenue, Floor 2
          St Louis, MO 63104
          Telephone: (314) 833-4825
          E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com
                  plesko@simmonsfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alexander Colin Wexler, Esq.
          William Kyle Walther, Esq.
          Takayuki X. Ono, Esq.
          GOLDBERG KOHN LTD
          55 E. Monroe, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201-4000
          Facsimile: (312) 332-2196
          E-mail: colin.wexler@goldbergkohn.com
                  kyle.walther@goldbergkohn.com
                  takayuki.ono@goldbergkohn.com


RECRO PHARMA: Alberici Securities Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN ALBERICI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RECRO PHARMA, INC., GERALDINE A.
HENWOOD, RYAN D. LAKE, MICHAEL CELANO, STEWART MCCALLUM, and JOHN
HARLOW, Civil Action No. 18-2279 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M.
Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted without prejudice the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss.

In the securities class action, a putative class of shareholders
bring claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that Recro Pharma and
five Individual Defendants defrauded the class by failing to inform
them of various concerns that had been raised to the company by
industry professionals regarding the manufacturing and efficacy of
Intravenous Meloxicam.  The drug promised to provide postoperative
pain relief without many of the complications of opioids.  When the
company announced that the FDA declined to approve IV Meloxicam,
the price of Recro's stock fell.

The Lead Plaintiffs are investors Daniel Wessler, Charles Clark,
Ronald Davidson, and Alberici ("Recro Investor Group").  Defendant
Recro, a "specialty pharmaceutical company" headquartered in
Malvern, Pennsylvania, develops non-opioid therapeutics for the
treatment of pain in the post-operative setting.

The Amended Complaint names five individuals who allegedly served
as members of Recro's Management and Leadership teams at all
relevant times: (i) Defendant Henwood, who founded Recro in 2007
and has served as the company's CEO, President and Director since
2008; (ii) Defendant McCallum, who has served as Recro's Chief
Medical Officer ("CMO") since December 2015; (iii) Defendant
Harlow, who has served as Recro's Executive VP, Commercial since
2018 and previously served as VP, Marketing; (iv) Defendant Celano,
who has served as Recro's COO since Jan. 3, 2018, and previously
served as CFO; and (v) Defendant Lake, who has served as Recro's
CFO since January 2018 and previously served as Senior VP of
Finance and CAO.

The Amended Complaint alleges two counts: (i) Count I - Violation
of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, which is
asserted against all Defendants; and (ii) Count II - Violation of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, which is asserted against the
Individual Defendants.

The Plaintiff alleges that Recro made 25 false and/or misleading
statements over the class period, which runs from July 17, 2017
through May 23, 2018.  He separates the allegedly false and
misleading statements by the fiscal quarter in which they were
made: five statements that were made during the third quarter of
2017 (July 1, 2017- Sept. 30, 2017); six statements that were made
during the fourth quarter of 2017 (Oct. 1, 2017 to Dec. 31, 2017);
nine statements that were made during the first quarter of 2018
(Jan. 1, 2018 to March 31, 2018); and five statements that were
made during the second quarter of 2018 (April 1, 2018 - June 30,
2018).

The Defendants collectively move to dismiss the Amended Complaint
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b), and
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").
The Lead Plaintiff responds in opposition, and the Defendants
reply.

The Plaintiff and the Defendants have each requested that the Court
take judicial notice of certain materials.  

First, the Plaintiff requests that the Court takes judicial notice
of a March 22, 2019 press release announcing Recro's receipt of a
second CRL in which the FDA declined to approve IV Meloxicam, as
well as a webcast of a conference call in which Henwood stated that
the FDA did focus on the fact that some patients have a reduction
in pain relief in the waning hours of the dosing period.  Second,
the Defendants request that the Court takes judicial notice of a
press release that was issued by Recro on Oct. 31, 2019 announcing
that it received a written decision from the FDA granting its
appeal of the CRL relating to the NDA seeking approval for IV
Meloxicam.

Judge Baylson holds that the Plaintiff's request need not be
evaluated because the Defendants do not oppose the Court taking
judicial notice of the March 22, 2019 press release.  The Judge
also declines to take judicial notice of the Oct. 31, 2019 press
release regarding the FDA's grant of Recro's appeal of the CRL
because the document is not within the scope of the Third Circuit's
narrow construction of the "public records" exception.

The Motion to Dismiss articulates six independent reasons for why
the Amended Complaint should be dismissed, raising arguments under
the first, second, and sixth elements.  The Plaintiff responds in
opposition to each theory set forth by the Defendants.  

First, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiff failed to plead a
materially misleading misrepresentation or omission.  Second, they
argue that many of the allegedly fraudulent statements are
protected by the PSLRA's safe harbor for forward looking
statements, and therefore are not actionable as misleading
misstatements.  Third, the Defendants assert that the Amended
Complaint does not meet the PSLRA's specificity requirement, in
part because Recro fully disclosed the facts underlying the KOLs'
alleged opinions regarding the efficacy of IV Meloxicam for soft
tissue procedures.  Fourth, they contend that the Plaintiff's
allegations of scienter are insufficient to satisfy the "strong
inference" standard because the Plaintiff makes no allegation that
could form the basis of scienter, such as allegations relating to
stock sales by Defendants or any motive of the Defendants to act
fraudulently.  Fifth, the Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to
make any allegations regarding loss causation.  Sixth, they explain
that because Section 20(a) liability is derivative of Section 10(b)
liability, and because there is no Section 10(b) liability, Count
II should be dismissed.

The Court addresses the Defendants' arguments that (1) the opinions
of the third-party KOLs were not material; (2) the Amended
Complaint is devoid of scienter allegations; (3) the loss causation
allegations are lacking.  Initially, he notes that the various
statements differ in the degree to which they are misleading and/or
covered by Section 10(b) -- for some statements, there is no clear
theory of falsity, and for others, the applicability of the PSLRA's
safe harbors raise legitimate questions about actionability.  

The Memorandum does not engage in statement-by-statement analysis
because the insufficiency of the scienter allegations applies to
all of the alleged misrepresentations.  The Plaintiff's failure to
adequately plead scienter obviates the need to assess the
statements individually, because regardless of the Court's
conclusion on falsity and the PSLRA's safe harbors, the lack of
scienter is fatal.

Before reaching the scienter question, however, the Court analyzes
the Defendants' arguments on materiality and loss causation.  Like
the scienter, the Court finds that the arguments on both of these
elements apply to all of the misrepresentations.

The Plaintiff requests that the Court grants leave to amend if the
Motion to Dismiss is granted.  The Court grants the Plaintiff leave
to amend to address the deficiencies identified in the Memorandum.
The Amended Complaint does not contain factual allegations that
support a "strong inference" of scienter, which is why the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted.  However, if the
Plaintiff can supplement the complaint with additional factual
allegations related to scienter, it may survive another Rule
12(b)(6) challenge.  Therefore, the Court is not convinced that
amendment would be futile.  

The Defendants contend that any amendment of the complaint would be
futile because it would not "change the contents of their
statements on which the Plaintiff has based its claims, that all of
the information purportedly omitted by them was already public, or
the forward-looking nature of many of the statements.  However, the
Amended Complaint is dismissed due to the insufficiency of the
scienter allegations, and because the Plaintiff may be able to
adequately replead that element, it is not certain that amendment
would be futile.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Baylson granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint without prejudice because
the Amended Complaint does not plead a "strong inference" of
scienter as required by the PSLRA.  The Plaintiff may file a second
amended complaint without delay.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 18, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/pvnx5y from Leagle.com.

RECRO INVESTOR GROUP, Lead Plaintiff, represented by BRENDA SZYDLO
, POMERANTZ LLP & DAVID SEAMUS KASKELA -- skaskela@kaskelalaw.com
-- KASKELA LAW LLC.

JOHN ALBERICI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by BRENDA SZYDLO, POMERANTZ LLP,
DAVID SEAMUS KASKELA, KASKELA LAW LLC, J. ALEXANDER HOOD, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP & JEREMY A. LIEBERMAN --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP.

RECRO PHARMA, INC., Defendant, represented by MEREDITH SHERMAN --
shermanm@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, ROBERT L. HICKOK --
hickokr@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, ERICA HALL DRESSLER
-- dresslere@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER HAMILTON LLP & JAY A. DUBOW --
dubowj@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER HAMILTON.

GERALDINE A. HENWOOD, RYAN D. LAKE, MICHAEL CELANO, STEWART
MCCALLUM & JOHN HARLOW, Defendants, represented by ROBERT L.
HICKOK, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP.


RINCONCITO SUPERLATINO 4: Puerto Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Puerto, Veronica Luna, Hazell Mejia, Iris Calix, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. RINCONCITO
SUPERLATINO 4, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-21999-UU (S.D. Fla., May 13,
2020), alleges that the Plaintiffs have not been paid overtime
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly, in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs, therefore, seeks to recover the time and a half
overtime rate at the applicable minimum wage rate for each hour
worked in excess of 40 in a week. The Defendant willfully and
intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiffs' overtime wages as
required by the FLSA as the Defendant knew of the overtime
requirements of the FLSA and recklessly failed to investigate
whether the Defendant's payroll practices were in accordance with
the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant in its restaurants.

The Defendant is a corporation that regularly transacts business
within the Miami-Dade County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Phone: (305) 865-6766
          Fax: (305) 865-7167


RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Inmate Dies of Coronavirus Amid Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard K. De Atley, writing for The Press-Enterprise, reports that
a Riverside County jail inmate who tested positive for coronavirus
at the Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility near Banning died
Sunday, April 26, after being hospitalized, authorities said.

The inmate, whose identity has not been released, is the first
reported coronavirus death of an incarcerated person in the five
Riverside County jails. A sheriff's deputy assigned to jail duty
died April 2 after contracting coronavirus.

The inmate has been in custody since Aug. 11, 2018 and was being
held on $1 million bail after being arrested on suspicion of arson
and burglary, the Riverside County Sheriff said in a news release.

Medical staff at the Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility
immediately tested the inmate for COVID-19 after he displayed
flu-like symptoms on April 13. The inmate was transferred to
another housing unit for closer monitoring, and tests for
coronavirus came back positive on April 14, the release said.

The Smith facility has a medical clinic that opened in 2019.

The inmate was taken by ambulance to a hospital when his condition
worsened on April 20, and he died Sunday, April 26, "from what
appeared to be complications related to COVID-19." The final cause
of death has yet to be determined, the sheriff's release said.

Investigators from the Corrections Investigation Bureau and the
Coroner's Bureau will take up the inquiry. The inmate's identity
will not be released until relatives are notified. There were no
signs of foul play, the sheriff's release said. No other
information was immediately available.

Riverside County's management of coronavirus in its jails has been
under the scrutiny of a federal judge when the plaintiffs in a
class-action lawsuit over health care of inmates returned to court
earlier in April, claiming the terms of the legal action's 2015
settlement were being violated.

A report submitted on April 24 to U.S. District Judge Virginia
Phillips said Riverside County had given plaintiff Prison Law
Office attorneys an action plan that includes a promise to provide
regular updates on the health of its infected inmates.

In his most recent update, on April 17, Sheriff Chad Bianco said
107 inmates had tested positive for coronavirus and that 53 had
recovered; and that 71 sheriff's employees had been infected,
including two deputies who died.

On April 2, Riverside County Sheriff's Deputy Terrell Young, 52,
who the department believes was infected by an inmate at the Cois
M. Byrd Detention Center in French Valley, where Young worked, died
from coronavirus. Most of the Riverside County inmate infections
have been recorded at that facility.

Another Riverside County Sheriff's Deputy, David Werksman, 51, died
from coronavirus complications the same day as Young. Werksman was
most recently assigned to the sheriff's administrative office in
Riverside. [GN]


ROSETTA STONE: Stein Sues Over Revision in Cert. of Incorporation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shiva Stein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ROSETTA STONE INC., A. JOHN HASS III, LAURENCE
FRANKLIN, AEDHMAR HYNES, PATRICK GROSS, GEORGE LOGUE, DAVID
NIERENBERG, KATHRYN EBERLE WALKER, JESSIE WOOLLEY-WILSON, and
STEVEN YANKOVICH, Case No. 2020-0370- (Del. Ch., May 14, 2020), is
brought against the Company and its Board of Directors in
connection with their solicitation of stockholder approval of an
amendment to the Company's Second Amended and Restated Certificate
of Incorporation.

If approved, the proposed amendment will amend Article VI, Section
6 of the Certificate to allow for the removal of directors by
Rosetta Stone's stockholders with or without cause and enable the
Company to proceed with its stated intent to declassify the Board
(the "Certificate Proposal"). The Board has solicited stockholder
approval of the Certificate Proposal through issuance of a proxy
statement filed by Rosetta Stone with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 29, 2020 (the "2020 Proxy"), in which it
recommends that stockholders vote in favor of the Certificate
Proposal at the annual meeting of stockholders scheduled to be held
on June 11, 2020 (the "2020 Annual Meeting").

In the 2020 Proxy, the Company states that approval of the
Certificate Proposal requires "the affirmative vote of at least 66%
of the total voting power of the shares present in person or
represented by proxy at the 2020 Annual Meeting and entitled to
vote on" the Certificate Proposal.

The Plaintiff contends that this assertion is wrong. The Plaintiff
argues that the Certificate specifically provides that amendments,
such as the Certificate Proposal--i.e., those to amend Article VI,
pertaining to the Board--require the approval of at least 66% of
the total voting power of all classes of the then outstanding
capital stock of Rosetta Stone entitled to vote generally in the
election of directors.

Because the disclosure in the 2020 Proxy concerning the threshold
for approval of the Certificate Proposal is at odds with the
standard specified in the Certificate for stockholder approval of
amendments to Article VI, the 2020 Proxy is materially false and
misleading, according to the complaint. The 2020 Proxy also
incorrectly discloses the treatment and effect that broker
non-votes will have with respect to the Certificate Proposal,
stating that "Broker non-votes will not be counted for the purpose
of determining the number of votes necessary for approval of the
Certificate Proposal, and will have no effect on the outcome of the
vote on the Certificate Proposal."

The Plaintiff is a Rosetta Stone stockholder and is entitled to
vote at the 2020 Annual Meeting. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief to correct the false and misleading disclosures in the 2020
Proxy and afford herself and other stockholders complete and
accurate information concerning the voting standard applicable to
the Certificate Proposal before Rosetta Stone stockholders vote
thereon.

Rosetta Stone is a Delaware corporation, which maintains its
principal executive offices in Arlington, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 295-5310

               - and -

          Benjamin Kaufman, Esq.
          Gloria Kui Melwani, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 545-4600

               - and -

          William J. Fields, Esq.
          Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
          Samir Shukurov, Esq.
          FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
          1370 Broadway, 5th Floor, #5100
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 231-1500


RUSHMORE LOAN: Cooper Sues in S.D. Florida Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rushmore Loan
Management Services LLC. The case is captioned as Gary Cooper, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Rushmore
Loan Management Services LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-21802-UU (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ursula Ungaro.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Rushmore Loan is a multi-faceted residential mortgage servicer
located in Irvine, California; Dallas, Texas; and San Juan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barbara Cabrera Lewis, Esq.
          Howard Mitchell Bushman, Esq.
          Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM
          2 Alhambra Plaza, No. 601
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1423
          Facsimile: (786) 298-5737
          E-mail: barbara@moskowitz-law.com
                  howard@moskowitz-law.com
                  joseph@moskowitz-law.com
                  adam@moskowitz-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Celia Chapman Falzone, Esq.
          Marc Jonathan Gottlieb, Esq.
          William Patrick Heller, Esq.
          AKERMAN SENTERFITT EIDSON
          50 N Laura Street, Suite 2500
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 598-8644
          E-mail: celia.falzone@akerman.com
                  marc.gottlieb@akerman.com
                  william.heller@akerman.com


RUST-OLEUM CORP: Falsely Markets Krud Kutter Cleaners, Bush Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Bush, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION, an Illinois corporation, Case
No. 3:20-cv-03268 (N.D. Cal., May 13, 2020), seeks injunctive
relief to stop Defendant's unlawful labeling and marketing of its
Krud Kutter home cleaning products.

The Plaintiff contends that Krud Kutter "Non-Toxic," "Earth
Friendly" formula is toxic to humans, animals, and the environment.
The Defendant exposes consumers to harmful ingredients hidden in
its Krud Kutter products by fraudulently advertising them as
non-toxic. The products are, in fact, toxic because they contain
ingredients that have been linked to lung irritation, skin
irritation, sneezing, sore throat, runny nose, shortness of breath,
and severe burns of the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes, the
Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff adds that some of the ingredients
are possible human carcinogens.

Through its unlawful conduct, the Defendant obtains an unfair
competitive advantage in the household cleaning market and unfairly
profits from consumers' desire for products that are not harmful to
humans, animals, and the environment, the Plaintiff avers. Contrary
to their labeling, the purported non-toxic and earth friendly
cleaning Products contain numerous ingredients that are harmful to
humans, animals, and/or the environment, he adds.

Through falsely, misleadingly, and deceptively labeling the
Products, the Defendant sought to take advantage of consumers'
desire for non-toxic cleaning products that are safe for humans,
animals, and the environment, while reaping the financial benefits
of using less desirable, harmful ingredients in the Products,
according to the complaint. The Defendant has done so at the
expense of unwitting consumers, as well as the Defendant's lawfully
acting competitors, over whom the Defendant maintains an unfair
competitive advantage.

The Plaintiff purchased Krud Kutter Original Cleaner & Degreaser
(Aerosol) and Krud Kutter Tough Task Remover at Home Depot in
Emeryville, California.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, labels, and sells
the Products throughout California and the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
          Matthew T. Theriault, Esq.
          Celine Cohan, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804
          Los Angeles, CA 90069
          Phone: (213) 788-4050
          Fax: (213) 788-4070
          Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                 sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                 mtheriault@clarksonlawfirm.com
                 ccohan@clarksonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Moon, Esq.
          Kevin O. Moon, Esq.
          MOON LAW APC
          600 West Broadway, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone:  (619) 915-9432
          Fax: (650) 618-0478
          Email: chris@moonlawapc.com
                 kevin@moonlawapc.com


RUTGERS: Faces Rocchio Suit Over COVID-19 Tuition & Fees Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------------
KARI ROCCHIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY, Case No.
3:20-cv-05390-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., April 30, 2020), is brought on
behalf of all people, who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020
academic semester at Rutgers, and who, because of the Defendant's
response to the COVID-19 pandemic, lost the benefit of the
education for which they paid, and the services for which their
fees paid, without having their tuition and fees refunded to them.

On March 10, 2020, Rutgers, via letter from University President
Robert Barchi, announced that because of the global COVID-19
pandemic, beginning Thursday, March 12, through the end of spring
break on March 22, 2020, all classes are cancelled. When classes
resume on March 23, they would be held remotely. As a result of the
closure of the Defendant's facilities, the Defendant has not
delivered the educational services, facilities, access and/or
opportunities that Ms. Rocchio and the putative class contracted
and paid for, says the complaint. Nonetheless, Rutgers has not
refunded any tuition or fees for the Spring 2020 semester, the
Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff seeks, for herself and Class members, the Defendant's
disgorgement of the pro-rated portion of tuition and fees,
proportionate to the amount of time that remained in the Spring
Semester 2020 when classes moved online and campus services ceased
being provided.

Rutgers is New Jersey's largest university, with an enrollment of
over 68,000 students. Rutgers operates three New Jersey campuses in
New Brunwick, Newark, and Camden.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
                  aleslie@bursor.com
                  scott@bursor.com
                  swestcot@bursor.com


SADDLE PEAK: Ross Sues over Wrongful Interference & Termination
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MARCUS ROSS, Plaintiff v. Saddle Peak, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02320 (W.D. Tenn., May 1, 2020) arises from
Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Plaintiff began working at Defendant's Hardee's on July 7, 2018 as
a Shift Leader, and soon thereafter was promoted to General
Manager.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff had to take emergency leave
when he experienced severe nausea and vomiting while at work due to
gastrointestinal distress and left his position as a manager
without replacement. Despite being informed about the reason why
Plaintiff's leave of absence is delayed, Defendant's District
Manager Ms. Pickens began contacting Plaintiff on October 10, 2019
repeatedly asking when he was returning to work, even tried to
persuade him to step down as a general manager, and demanded a
meeting on November 25, 2019 before his return to work which
Plaintiff failed to attend.

Consequently and shortly thereafter, Defendant's Human Resources
officer Ms. Lucker called Plaintiff that his services will no
longer be needed, and provided a separation notice indicating that
he did not qualify for FMLA.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, back pay, front pay, liquidated
and/or other damages permitted by applicable law, attorney's fees,
costs and expenses incurred in the complaint.

Saddle Peak, LLC is a fast-food and quick-service restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip E. Oliphant, Esq.
          Alan G. Crone, Esq.
          THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
          88 Union Ave., 14th Floor
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Tel: 901-737-7740
          Fax: 901-474-7926
          Emails: poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com
                  acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com


SAFECO INSURANCE: Montana District Remands Marshall Insurance Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARCIA MARWILL, individually and on behalf of all
individuals of the class similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SAFECO
INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS and MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. CV 19-82-BLG-TJC (D. Mont.), Magistrate Judge
Timothy J. Cavan of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Montana, Billings Division, granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.

Plaintiff Marcia Marwill brought the putative class action in the
Montana Sixth Judicial District Court, Park County, Montana against
Defendants Safeco and Mid-Century, alleging the Defendants
improperly reduced insurance payouts based upon Montana's
collateral source reduction statute.  The Plaintiff asserts claims
for declaratory and injunctive relief, violation of Montana's
Unfair Trade Practices Act, and common law bad faith.

The Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident in February
2010.  Safeco and Mid-Century are liability insurers for the owner
and the driver of the car in which she was riding.  At the time of
the accident, the Plaintiff was insured under an individual health
insurance policy through Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas.  As a
result of the Plaintiff's injuries, Blue Cross paid certain medical
expenses for her.  Thereafter, Blue Cross asserted a lien and
subrogation claim against any settlement proceeds paid by the
Defendants.

The Plaintiff negotiated a settlement with the Defendants prior to
a trial.  In executing the settlement, however, the Defendants
asserted a right under Montana's collateral source statute to an
offset of $15,000 based on payments made by Blue Cross.  The offset
was ultimately exercised over her objection, but the Plaintiff
reserved any claims she had against the Defendants, including any
claim based on the collateral source reduction.

On Nov. 25, 2013, the Plaintiff filed the action in state court.
At that time, she pled her Complaint as a putative class action.
Before the original Complaint was served, however, the Plaintiff
filed a First Amended Complaint which abandoned the class claims.

On March 29, 2018, the Plaintiff's counsel sent the Defendants'
counsel an email indicating she planned to seek leave to file a
Second Amended Complaint reviving the class claims.  Before the
Second Amended Complaint was filed, Safeco removed the case to the
Montana District Court on April 30, 2018.  The District Court
remanded the case on grounds that the removal was premature because
the state court had not yet ruled on the Plaintiff's motion to
amend, and the proposed Second Amended Complaint was not yet the
operative pleading.

On July 1, 2019, the state court granted the Plaintiff's motion to
amend.  The Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint on July
11, 2019.  In her complaint, she alleges the Defendants improperly
reduced insurance payouts based on Montana's collateral source
reduction statute.  Relevant to her class claims, Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants programmatically utilized and relied upon the
collateral source statute or its principles to take a reduction
against damages sustained and owed to their insureds (via first
party coverages, such as uninsured motorist coverage, underinsured
motorist coverages and medical payments coverages) or claimants
(via liability coverages).

The Plaintiff defined the class as follows:  Each claimant and/or
insured who made a claim for damages with one or both of the
Defendant(s), in which, the Defendant(s) have taken reduction
against the damages owed to the claimant and/or insured in payment
of the claim pursuant to the collateral source statute and/or its
principles, and have done so before trial and a tort award, and/or
have done so without first conducting an investigation or inquiry
into the matters set forth, and/or, have taken a reduction against
the damages owed to the claimant and/or insured in payment of
claims pursuant to the collateral source statute or its principles
that is deemed unconstitutional.

The Second Amended Complaint does not specify the number of class
members or the amount of damages sought.

On July 29, 2019, Safeco again removed the action, asserting
jurisdiction under CAFA.  Safeco asserts the District Court has
original jurisdiction under CAFA because (1) minimal diversity is
satisfied, (2) the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and (3)
the proposed class exceeds 100 members.  In the Notice of Removal,
Safeco estimates the amount in controversy is $59,145,000, plus
potential punitive damages.

Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand.
Plaintiff argues the action must be remanded because Safeco has not
met its burden to show the amount in controversy exceeds $5
million.  Plaintiff argues Safeco relies on unreasonable and
overbroad assumptions to reach its estimate of the amount in
controversy.  Plaintiff further asserts the District Court should
not consider punitive damages or attorney fees in determining the
amount in controversy.  In response, Safeco argues it has
reasonably estimated the amount in controversy based on the
allegations in the Second Amended Complaint, and contends attorney
fees and potential punitive damages may properly be considered.

The parties do not dispute that the minimal diversity and
numerosity requirements under CAFA are met.  The sole issue,
therefore, is whether the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional threshold of $5 million.

Magistrate Judge Cavan finds Safeco has failed to meet its burden
to show the potential compensatory damages meet CAFA's jurisdiction
threshold. Safeco has not offered any other basis to determine a
reasonable estimate of the putative class members' average damages.
Without such evidence, Safeco's damages estimate is based on mere
speculation and conjecture.  The Magistrate Judge therefore
declines to adopt Safeco's unsupported assumption that the average
offset was $15,000.

Safeco has not also presented any facts or other evidence that
would demonstrate why the facts of the case may warrant punitive
damages, the District Court holds.  Accordingly, Safeco has not met
its burden to show punitive damages are at issue, or will likely
increase the amount in controversy to meet the jurisdictional
threshold.

Safeco has failed to adequately establish the likely amount of
compensatory damages, the District Court adds.  Thus, there is no
base amount to apply the 25% benchmark.  Safeco has not provided
any other evidence to establish the likely amount of attorney fees.
The Magistrate Judge therefore declines to include attorney fees
in the amount in controversy.

Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Cavan concludes that
Safeco has not offered sufficient evidence to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million in the case.  Accordingly, the District Court
granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 18, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/l35CAh from Leagle.com.

Marcia Marwill, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Patrick Buckley --
dbuckley@bpslaw.com -- BUCKLEY LAW OFFICE & Lawrence A. Anderson,
ANDERSON LAW OFFICE.

Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, Defendant, represented by
Paul N. Tranel, BOHYER, ERICKSON, BEAUDETTE & TRANEL, P.C., Casie
D. Collignon -- ccollignon@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER, pro
hac vice, John E. Bohyer, BOHYER, ERICKSON, BEAUDETTE & TRANEL,
P.C. & Justin T. Winquist -- jwinquist@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER &
HOSTETLER, pro hac vice.

Mid-Century Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Alexander
T. Tsomaya, WILLIAMS LAW FIRM, Brian I. Hays, LOCKE LORD LLP, pro
hac vice, Nicholas John Pagnotta, WILLIAMS LAW FIRM & Randall A.
Hack, LOCKE LORD LLP, pro hac vice.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Ninth Circuit Flips Dismissal of Baird Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LANCE BAIRD, STEVE ALTES, LOUIS LECIEJEWSKI, AND
KRISHNENDU CHAKRABORTY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Defendants-Appellee, Case No. 18-16579
(9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims
against Samsung.

The Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Samsung Smart TVs in 2011
and 2012 in reliance on Samsung's express advertising and marketing
representations that the product would give the user access to
YouTube.  They further allege that Samsung knew at the time that
access to YouTube could be discontinued at any point.

Shortly after the Plaintiffs purchased their Smart TVs, Samsung
began transitioning from Smart TVs that had a flash-based YouTube
application to Smart TVs that had an HTML5-based YouTube app.  In
2017, YouTube permanently stopped functioning on the Plaintiffs'
Smart TVs because the company running YouTube discontinued the
flash-based app.

YouTube explained that it and its "device partners" had decided it
was "the right time to end-of-life" the flash-based YouTube app in
favor of the HTML5 version of the app because the flash-based app
could not access new features that were being added to the YouTube
app.  Samsung and YouTube made suggestions regarding additional
products that could be used to continue accessing YouTube on Smart
TVs purchased before 2013; Samsung allegedly offered no remedy or
fix for the problem.

The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action seeking damages,
attorney's fees and costs, and specific performance in the form of
reinstatement of their access to YouTube.  They asserted various
claims, including breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation,
and violations of consumer protection laws.  All of the Plaintiffs'
claims were dismissed by the district court for failure to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

In seeking dismissal of the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim,
Samsung argued that its representations regarding the accessibility
of YouTube were true at the time of purchase (because purchasers
were in fact able to access YouTube for several years
post-purchase), that it had never promised purchasers that they
would be able to access YouTube for the entire life of the Smart
TV, and that it had expressly disclaimed continual access to
YouTube in the user manuals and other documents.

The district court did not determine whether the advertising and
packaging of Samsung's Smart TVs were independently misleading.
Rather, the district court noted that the Plaintiffs alleged that
Samsung breached a purchase agreement including the representations
made through advertising and packaging and went on to consider
whether other terms - in particular, the disclaimers on which
Samsung relies - were also part of the parties' bargain.

The district court took judicial notice of four (or possibly eight)
documents that were in the box with the Smart TV or were displayed
on the screen when the TV was plugged in.  It concluded that,
because disclaimers included with warranties are part of the
express contract underlying a sale, the post-sale disclaimers
effectively clarified Samsung's advertising and marketing
representations regarding access to YouTube.  The holding informed
the district court's analysis and dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, consumer
protection, and unjust enrichment claims.

In opposing Samsung's motion to dismiss the breach of contract
claim, the Plaintiffs raised a number of arguments including, inter
alia, that: (a) disclaimers that could be accessed by consumers
only after they purchased the Smart TV, took it home, and attempted
to use the product did not become part of the parties' bargain
under California law; and (b) even if the disclaimers were part of
the purchase agreement, they were substantively and procedurally
unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable under California law.

The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court failed to address
these arguments, despite the fact that they both had to be resolved
in Samsung's favor before the court could conclude that the
disclaimers were part of the parties' bargain and/or were
enforceable.  The order obliquely acknowledges that there was a
temporal disconnect between the Plaintiffs' purchase of the Smart
TVs and the post-purchase disclosure of limitations on the promised
access to YouTube.  It does not, however, analyze the impact of the
delay on the basis of the parties' bargain under California law.

With regards to purchasers' assent, the district court took
judicial notice of certain documents and concluded that the
disclaimers contained therein were part of the parties' agreement.
It did not consistently identify the disclaimer language it found
relevant, however, or discuss whether the writings would put a
reasonable consumer on notice that contractual terms were in the
offing.  The district court did not address the Plaintiffs'
argument regarding substantive and procedural unconscionability at
all.

Apparently recognizing that the district court's analysis of the
express warranty issues was incomplete, Samsung argues that the
dismissal should nevertheless be affirmed on the independent ground
that, in the absence of an express promise of perpetual access to
YouTube, the Plaintiffs have failed to allege a breach.  The
district court expressly declined to address whether the
advertising and packaging of Samsung's Smart TV boxes were
independently misleading, and the Ninth Circuit declines to do so
in the first instance.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the trial
court's order on the Baird claims for further consideration.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Cirucit's Feb. 18, 2020 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/0YIJoY from Leagle.com.


SAN PEDRO FISH: Alvarado Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages Owed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jairo Alvarado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SAN PEDRO FISH MARKET, LLC a California Restaurant;
THOMAS AMALFITANO; and DOES 1-20 inclusive, Case No. 20LBCV00243
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 13, 2020), arises out of the
Defendants' failure to pay all wages owed to non-exempt employees,
to provide meal and rest breaks, to provide accurate wage
statements, and to pay all wages owed at the time of termination.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was not paid minimum
wages for all overtime hours worked. More specifically, minimum
wage was not recorded and/or was not paid properly by the
Defendants. The Plaintiff was not provided timely, complaint meal
periods. The Plaintiff was not provided timely, complaint rest
periods. The Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages at the required
rate of one and one-half their regular rate of pay when they worked
more than 8 hours in a workday or 40 hours in a workweek. The
Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages at the required doubled rate
of regular pay when they worked more than 12 hours in a workday;
and the Plaintiff was denied accurate itemized wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant San Pedro Fish Market from
February 6, 2018, to December 12, 2018.

San Pedro Fish Market is a California fish market and restaurant
doing business at multiple locations, including in San Pedro,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
          Cameron A. Stewart, Esq.
          MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
          Phone: (310) 312-0299
          Fax: (310) 312-0296


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Deka Class Action Still Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the securities
class action suit entitled, Deka Investment GmbH et al. v.
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., remains stayed.

The Company is a defendant in a purported securities class action
lawsuit (the "Deka Lawsuit") in the United States District Court,
Northern District of Texas, captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al.
v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.


The Deka Lawsuit, which was filed in August 26, 2014, was brought
against the Company, certain of its current and former directors
and executive officers and certain institutions that served as
underwriters in the Company's Initial Public Offering (IPO) on
behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired our securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014.


The complaint alleges, among other things, that our IPO
registration statement and prospectus and certain subsequent public
disclosures violated federal securities laws by containing
misleading statements concerning the Company's ability to pay
dividends and the adequacy of the Company's compliance systems and
oversight.

In December 2015, the Company and the individual defendants moved
to dismiss the lawsuit, which was denied.

In December 2016, the plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed
classes.

In July 2017, the court entered an order staying the Deka Lawsuit
pending the resolution of the appeal of a class certification order
in In re Cobalt Int'l Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. H-14-3428, 2017
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2017).

In October 2018, the court vacated the order staying the Deka
Lawsuit and ordered that merits discovery in the Deka Lawsuit be
stayed until the court ruled on the issue of class certification.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., a specialized consumer
finance company, provides vehicle finance and third-party servicing
in the United States. Its products and services include retail
installment contracts and vehicle leases, as well as dealer loans
for inventory, construction, real estate, working capital, and
revolving lines of credit. The company was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. is a subsidiary of Santander Holdings USA, Inc.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Baker Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LOU BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 14cv2129-MMA (S.D. Cal.), Judge Michael
M. Anello of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California granted the Class Representatives' motion for
preliminary approval of the Settlement and authorization to
disseminate notice of the Settlement to the Class.

The District Court certified the Baker Action in November 2017 to
proceed as a class action on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of
SeaWorld between Aug. 29, 2013 and Aug. 12, 2014, who did not sell
such acquired securities before Aug. 13, 2014, and were damaged.
Pursuant to the District Court's Dec. 6, 2018 Order, the Notice of
Pendency of Class Action was mailed to potential members of the
Class.  

The Court-appointed Class Representatives Arkansas Public Employees
Retirement System and Pensionskassen For Borne-Og
Ungdomspaedagoger, on behalf of themselves and the other members of
the Court-certified Class, and the Defendants have determined to
settle and dismiss with prejudice all claims asserted against
Defendants in the Action on the terms and conditions set forth in
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated Feb. 10, 2020,
subject to the approval of the Court.

The Class Representatives move, pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order preliminarily
approving the Settlement in accordance with the Stipulation and
authorizing notice of the Settlement to Class Members.

Upon review and consideration of (i) the Class Representatives'
motion for preliminary approval, and the papers filed and arguments
made in connection therewith; and (ii) the Stipulation and the
exhibits attached, Judge Anello granted the Class Representatives'
motion.

The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement, as embodied in the
Stipulation, and finds that, pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1)(B)(i) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court will likely be able to
finally approve the Settlement under Rule 23(e)(2) as being fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Class, subject to further
consideration at the Settlement Fairness Hearing to be conducted.

The Settlement Fairness Hearing is set for July 22, 2020 at 10:00
a.m.

The Class Counsel is authorized to retain Epiq Class Action &
Claims Solutions, Inc., the administrator previously approved by
the Court to administer the dissemination of the Class Notice, to
supervise and administer the notice procedure in connection with
the proposed Settlement as well as the processing of Claims.

The Notice of the Settlement and the Settlement Fairness Hearing
will be given by the Class Counsel as follows:

      (a) not later than 20 business days after the date of entry
of the Order, the Claims Administrator will cause a copy of the
Postcard Notice to potential Class Members who were previously
mailed a copy of the Class Notice and any other potential Class
Member who otherwise may be identified through further reasonable
effort, and will cause a copy of the Notice and Claim Form to the
brokers and other nominees contained in the Claims Administrator's
broker database;

      (b) contemporaneously with the mailing of the Postcard
Notice, the Claims Administrator will cause copies of the Notice
and the Claim Form to be posted on the website previously developed
for the Action, www.SeaWorldSecuritiesLitigation.com, from which
copies of the Notice and Claim Form can be downloaded;

      (c) not later than 10 calendar days after the Notice Date,
the Claims Administrator will cause the Summary Notice, to be
published once in Investor's Business Daily and to be transmitted
once over PR Newswire; and

      (d) not later than seven calendar days prior to the
Settlement Fairness Hearing, the Class Counsel will serve on the
Defendants' Counsel and file with the Court proof, by affidavit or
declaration, of such mailing, posting, and publication.

The Court approved, as to form and content, the Postcard Notice,
the Notice, the Summary Notice, and the Claim Form.

In the previously disseminated Class Notice, Nominees were advised
that, if they purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
common stock of SeaWorld between Aug. 29, 2013 and Aug. 12, 2014
for the beneficial interest of any person or entity other than
themselves, they must either: (i) within seven calendar days of
receipt of the Class Notice, request from Epiq sufficient copies of
the Class Notice to forward to all such beneficial owners and
within seven calendar days of receipt of those Class Notices
forward them to all such beneficial owners; or (ii) within seven
calendar days of receipt of the Class Notice, provide a list of the
names and last known addresses of all such beneficial owners to
Epiq:

     (a) For Nominees who chose the first option (i.e., elected to
mail the Class Notice directly to beneficial owners), Epiq will
forward the same number of Postcard Notices to such Nominees, and
the Nominees will, within seven calendar days of receipt of the
Postcard Notices, mail the Postcard Notices to their beneficial
owners;

     (b) For Nominees who chose the second option (i.e., provided a
list of names and addresses of beneficial owners to Epiq), Epiq
will promptly mail a Postcard Notice to each of the beneficial
owners whose names and addresses the Nominee previously supplied.
Unless the Nominee purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded common stock of SeaWorld during the Class Period for
beneficial owners whose names and addresses were not previously
provided to Epiq, or the Nominees is aware of name and address
changes for these beneficial owners, these Nominees need not take
any further action;

     (c) For Nominees who purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly traded common stock of SeaWorld during the Class Period
for beneficial owners whose names and addresses were not previously
provided to Epiq or if a Nominee is aware of name and address
changes for beneficial owners whose names and addresses were
previously provided to Epiq, such Nominees will within seven
calendar days of receipt of the Notice Packet, provide a list of
the names and addresses of all such beneficial owners to Epiq, or
will request from Epiq sufficient copies of the Postcard Notice to
forward to all such beneficial owners which the Nominee will,
within seven calendar days of receipt of the Postcard Notices from
Epiq, mail to the beneficial owners; and (d) Upon full and timely
compliance with the Order, Nominees may seek reimbursement of their
reasonable expenses actually incurred in complying with the Order
by providing the Claims Administrator with proper documentation
supporting the expenses for which reimbursement is sought.  Such
properly documented expenses incurred by Nominees in compliance
with the terms of the Order will be paid from the Settlement Fund,
with any disputes as to the reasonableness or documentation of
expenses incurred subject to review by the Court.

As provided in the Stipulation, the Defendants will serve the
notice required under the Class Action Fairness Act no later than
10 calendar days following the filing of the Stipulation with the
Court.  The Defendants are solely responsible for the costs of the
CAFA notice and administering the CAFA notice.  No later than seven
calendar days before the Settlement Fairness Hearing, the
Defendants will cause to be served on the Class Counsel and filed
with the Court proof, by affidavit or declaration, regarding
compliance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1715(b).  All Claim Forms must be
postmarked no later than 120 calendar days after the Notice Date.

Any Class Member may enter an appearance in the Action, at his,
her, or its own expense, individually or through the counsel of
his, her, or its own choice, by filing with the Clerk of Court and
delivering a notice of appearance to both the Class Counsel and the
Defendants' Counsel, such that it is received no later than 21
calendar days prior to the Settlement Fairness Hearing, or as the
Court may otherwise direct.  Any Class Member who does not enter an
appearance will be represented by the Class Counsel.

Any Class Member may file a written objection to the proposed
Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's
motion for attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses, no later than
21 calendar days prior to the Settlement Fairness Hearing.

Until otherwise ordered by the Court, Judge Anello stays all
proceedings in the Action other than proceedings necessary to carry
out or enforce the terms and conditions of the Stipulation.

All reasonable Notice and Administration Costs will be paid from
the Settlement Fund as set forth in the Stipulation without further
order of the Court.

The Class Counsel are authorized and directed to prepare any tax
returns and any other tax reporting form for or in respect to the
Settlement Fund, to pay from the Settlement Fund any Taxes owed
with respect to the Settlement Fund, and to otherwise perform all
obligations with respect to Taxes and any reporting or filings in
respect thereof without further order of the Court in a manner
consistent with the provisions of the Stipulation.

The Class Counsel will file and serve the opening papers in support
of final approval of the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and the Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
Litigation Expenses no later than 35 calendar days prior to the
Settlement Fairness Hearing; and reply papers, if any, will be
filed and served no later than seven calendar days prior to the
Settlement Fairness Hearing.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 18, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/v7ULsV from Leagle.com.

Lou Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ethan Thomas Boyer --
eboyer@noonanlance.com -- Noonan Lance Boyer & Banach LLP,
Gregory M. Castaldo -- gcastaldo@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua E. D'Ancona --
jdancona@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac
vice, Joshua A. Materese -- jmaterese@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Megan Koneski,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice & Michael K.
Yarnoff -- myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check LLP, pro hac vice.

Pensionskassen for Borne-Og UngdomspAedagoger, Plaintiff,
represented by Bradley E. Beckworth -- bbeckworth@nixlaw.co --
Nix Patterson & Roach LLP, pro hac vice, David J. Noonan --
dnoonan@noonanlance.com -- Noonan Lance Boyer & Banach LLP, Eli
R. Greenstein -- egreenstein@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, Ethan Thomas Boyer -- eboyer@noonanlance.com --
Noonan Lance Boyer & Banach LLP, Gregory M. Castaldo, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua E. D'Ancona,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua A.
Materese, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Megan
Koneski, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice &
Michael K. Yarnoff, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac
vice.

Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by Bradley E. Beckworth, Nix Patterson & Roach LLP,
pro hac vice, Cody L. Hill -- codyhill@nixlaw.com -- Nix
Patterson & Roach LLP, pro hac vice, David J. Noonan, Noonan
Lance Boyer & Banach LLP, Eli R. Greenstein, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, Ethan Thomas Boyer, Noonan Lance Boyer &
Banach LLP, Gregory M. Castaldo, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey J. Angelovich --
jangelovich@nixlaw.com -- Nix Patterson & Roach LLP, pro hac
vice, Joshua E. D'Ancona, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro
hac vice, Joshua A. Materese, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP,
pro hac vice, Lloyd Nolan Duck, III , Nix, Patterson & Roach,
LLP, pro hac vice, Megan Koneski, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
LLP, pro hac vice, Michael K. Yarnoff, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check LLP, pro hac vice & Susan Whatley -- swhatley@nixlaw.com --
Nix Patterson & Roach, LLP, pro hac vice.

United States of America, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by
Mark John Cipolletti, United States Department of Justice &
Michael John Rinaldi, U.S. Department of Justice.

Seaworld Entertainment, Inc., James M Heaney, Marc Swanson & The
Blackstone Group L.P., Defendants, represented by Chet A.
Kronenberg -- ckronenberg@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher and
Bartlett LLP, Dean Michael McGee -- dean.mcgee@stblaw.com --
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Janet Gochman --
jgochman@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac
vice, Jonathan K. Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice & Meredith Karp --
meredith.karp@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro
hac vice.

James Atchison, Defendant, represented by Michael Joseph Diver --
michael.diver@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, pro
hac vice, Michael J. Lohnes -- michael.lohnes@kattenlaw.com --
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, pro hac vice, Richard H. Zelichov --
richard.zelichov@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Gil
M. Soffer -- gil.soffer@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman
LLP & Jason Yuegin Kelly -- jason.kelly@kattenlaw.com -- Katten
Muchin Rosenman LLP.

The Blackstone Group, L.P., Defendant, represented by Dean
Michael McGee, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice.

The Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System & Pembroke Pines
Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund, ThirdParty
Plaintiffs, represented by Jeffrey Almeida -- jalmeida@gelaw.com
-- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., pro hac vice & Timothy G. Blood --
tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP.


SERVICE CORP: Appeal in Moulton Class Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the
appeal in the class action suit entitled, Karen Moulton,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation International and
others ; Case No. 2013-5636; in the Civil District Court Parish of
New Orleans, Louisiana, is still pending.

This case was filed as a class action in June 2013 against an SCI
subsidiary in connection with SCI's acquisition of Stewart
Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and abetted
breaches of fiduciary duties by Stewart Enterprises and its board
of directors in negotiating the combination of Stewart Enterprises
with a subsidiary of SCI.

The plaintiffs seek damages concerning the combination.

The company filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' complaint that were
granted in June 2014. Thus, subject to appeals, SCI will no longer
be party to the suit.

The case has continued against the company's subsidiary Stewart
Enterprises and its former individual directors.

However, in October 2016, the court entered a judgment dismissing
all of plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.


Service Corporation said, "Given the nature of this lawsuit, we are
unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss,
if any."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Service Corporation International is an American provider of
funeral goods and services as well as cemetery property and
services. It is headquartered in Neartown, Houston, Texas. SCI
operates more than 1500 funeral homes and 400 cemeteries in 43
states, eight Canadian provinces, and Puerto Rico.


SERVICE CORP: Bernstein Suit Over Sales Practices Resolved
-----------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the class
action suit entitled, Caroline Bernstein, on behalf of herself and
Marla Urofsky on behalf of Rhea Schwartz, and both on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SCI Pennsylvania Funeral Services,
Inc. and Service Corporation International, Case No.
2:17-cv-04960-GAM; in the United States District Court Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, has been settled.

This case was filed in November 2017 as a purported national or
alternatively as a Pennsylvania class action regarding the
company's Forest Hills/Shalom Memorial Park in Huntingdon Valley,
Pennsylvania and our Roosevelt Memorial Park Cemetery in Trevose,
Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs allege wrongful burial and sales practices. Plaintiffs
seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, interest, and injunctive relief.

The court granted the company's motion for summary judgment on the
named plaintiff's individual claims in January 2020.

This lawsuit was settled in April 2020. The financial terms of the
settlement call for SCI Pennsylvania Funeral Services, Inc. to pay
an immaterial amount.

Service Corporation International is an American provider of
funeral goods and services as well as cemetery property and
services. It is headquartered in Neartown, Houston, Texas. SCI
operates more than 1500 funeral homes and 400 cemeteries in 43
states, eight Canadian provinces, and Puerto Rico.


SERVICE CORP: Faces Taylor Class Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the
company has been named as a defendant in a class action suit
entitled, Nancy Taylor, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Service Corporation International and others, Case No.
20-cv-60709; in the United States District Court Southern District
of Florida Fort Lauderdale Division.  

This case was filed in April 2020 as a Florida class action
alleging that the allocation of prices among certain of the
company's cremation service contracts and cremation merchandise
contracts, and the related preneed trust funding, and the failure
to disclose commissions paid and sales practices associated with
the sale of third party travel protection plans, violate the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and constitute
unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff seeks refunds, general, actual, compensatory and
exemplary damages, civil penalties, interest and attorney fees.

Service Corporation said, "Given the nature of this lawsuit, we are
unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss,
if any."

Service Corporation International is an American provider of
funeral goods and services as well as cemetery property and
services. It is headquartered in Neartown, Houston, Texas. SCI
operates more than 1500 funeral homes and 400 cemeteries in 43
states, eight Canadian provinces, and Puerto Rico.


SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL: Thornton Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thornton Law Firm LLP alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc. on
behalf of ServiceMaster shareholders (NYSE: SERV). SERV investors
interested in participating as a lead plaintiff in the case are
encouraged to contact the firm at
https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/SERV. Shareholders may also email
shareholder@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917. The deadline to apply
to serve as a lead plaintiff is June 9, 2020.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/SERV

The lawsuit alleges that ServiceMaster did not disclose material
information to investors in a timely manner, causing investors to
suffer losses on October 22, 2019 and November 5, 2019.

On October 22, 2019, ServiceMaster announced disappointing
preliminary financial results for the third-quarter 2019, having
missed revenue and earnings estimates, and issued downward adjusted
EBITDA guidance. The press release attributed the disappointing
results to "termite damage claims arising primarily from Formosan
termite activity," primarily in Mobile, Alabama. The Company
further stated that this had been a known issue, having taken
mitigating measures "starting in 2018." Finally, the Company
announced the sudden departure of Matthew J. Stevenson in his role
as President of Terminix Residential.

On this news the price of ServiceMaster common stock fell $11.44 or
20 percent, closing at $44.70 on October 22, 2019, down from its
$56.14 closing price on October 21, 2019.

On November 5, 2019, before the start of trading, ServiceMaster
released its third-quarter 2019 financial results. In this press
release discussing the "challenging quarter," the Company revealed
that it had been impacted by certain "legacy risks," including
"termite damage claims." That same day, Defendants held an earnings
call with analysts and investors to discuss ServiceMaster's
third-quarter 2019 financial results. On the call, Defendants
informed the market that the increase in termite litigation-which
had occurred "[i]n the past few years"-had impacted termite revenue
and these issues would continue throughout 2020.

On this news, the price of ServiceMaster common stock fell $1.42,
or 3.5 percent, to close at $39.15 on November 5, 2019. As the
market continued to digest the disappointing news, ServiceMaster
shares further declined by $3.41, or 9 percent, closing at $35.74
on November 6, 2019. All told, following the November 5, 2019
disclosure, ServiceMaster stock suffered a total decline of $4.83
from the November 4, 2019 closing price.

Investors who have suffered a loss as a result of their investment
in SERV stock (NYSE: SERV) are encouraged to contact the Thornton
Law Firm's shareholder rights team at
http://www.tenlaw.com/cases/SERV,by email at
shareholder@tenlaw.com, or calling 617-531-3917. To be a member of
the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the Class.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/SERV

Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing individual shareholders and institutional investors in
recovering damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its
attorneys have established track records litigating securities
cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on
behalf of shareholders.

Contact:

         Thornton Law Firm LLP
         State Street Financial Center
         1 Lincoln Street
         Boston, MA 02111
         http://www.tenlaw.com/cases/SERV[GN]


SIEMENS MOBILITY: Keopadubsy Files Suit in California Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Siemens Mobility,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Khamkoth Keopadubsy, on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation; Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2020-00278580-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., May 14,
2020).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment."

Siemens Mobility offers intelligent and efficient mobility
solutions for urban, interurban and freight transportation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
          515 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
          Phone: (213) 488-6555
          Fax: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com


SIX FLAGS: Okla. Firefighters and Local 103 Named Lead Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark Pittman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas has appointed Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System and Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103
IBEW to serve as Lead Plaintiffs in the case entitled, Electrical
Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. v. Six Flags Entertainment
Corp., et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00201-P (N.D. Tex.), pursuant to
Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15
U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3)(B), as amended by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that in
February 2020, two putative securities class action complaints were
filed against the company and certain of its former executive
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.

On March 2, 2020, the two cases were consolidated in an action
captioned Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. v. Six
Flags Entertainment Corp., et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00201-P (N.D.
Tex.), and an amended complaint was filed on March 20, 2020.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants made materially false or misleading statements or
omissions regarding the Company's business, operations and growth
prospects, specifically with respect to the development of its Six
Flags branded parks in China and the financial health of its
partner, Riverside Investment Group Co. Ltd., in violation of the
federal securities laws.

The amended complaint seeks compensatory damages and other relief
on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's common
stock during the period between April 25, 2018 and February 19,
2020.

On April 13, 2020, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System and Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. moved
for appointment as co-lead plaintiffs, and sought an order
approving their selection of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman
LLP as lead counsel and McKool Smith PC as liaison counsel.

A lead plaintiff and lead counsel have not yet been appointed to
represent the putative class.

Six Flags said, "We believe that these lawsuits are without merit
and intend to defend this litigation vigorously. However, there can
be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.


SIX FLAGS: Still Defends Lawsuits Over Credit Card Info
-------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the
company continues to defend against putative class action suits
related to the printing of more than the last five digits of a
credit or debit card number on customers' receipts, and/or the
expiration dates of the cards.

During 2017, four putative class action complaints were filed
against Holdings or one of its subsidiaries. Complaints were filed
on August 11, 2017, in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois;
on September 1, 2017, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia; on September 11, 2017, in the
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California; and on November
30, 2017, in the Superior Court of Ocean County, New Jersey.

The complaints allege that the company, in violation of federal
law, printed more than the last five digits of a credit or debit
card number on customers’ receipts and/or the expiration dates of
those cards.

A willful violation may subject a company to liability for actual
damages or statutory damages between $100 and $1,000 per person,
punitive damages in an amount determined by a court and reasonable
attorneys' fees, all of which are sought by the plaintiffs. The
complaints do not allege that any information was misused.

The Circuit Court in Illinois granted the company's motion to
dismiss on November 2, 2018, but the matter was reversed on appeal
on January 22, 2020. The company intends to seek further review
with the Illinois Supreme Court.  

The District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied the
company's motion to dismiss on May 6, 2019, but on December 31,
2019, the matter was stayed and administratively closed on the
company's motion based on the Eleventh Circuit's review of an order
denying dismissal in a case involving substantially similar factual
allegations and statutory violations.

Either side may move to reopen the Georgia case within 30 days of
the issuance of the Eleventh Circuit's opinion in the other matter.
The company's demurrer in the California matter was overruled on
February 26, 2019, but the order contained certain favorable
rulings that enabled us to file a motion for summary judgment on
December 12, 2019.

The Superior Court in the New Jersey matter granted the company's
motion to dismiss on January 18, 2019, which ruling the plaintiff
has appealed.

Six Flags said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against
these lawsuits. The outcome of these lawsuits is currently not
determinable, and a reasonable estimate of loss or range of loss in
excess of the immaterial amount that we have recorded for this
litigation cannot be made."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.


SIX FLAGS: Still Defends Suit Over Collection of Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the
company continues to defend a potential class action suit related
to Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

On January 7, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Six Flags Entertainment Corporation in the Circuit Court of
Lake County, Illinois.

On April 22, 2016, Great America, LLC was added as a defendant.

The complaint asserts that we violated the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") in connection with the admission
of season pass holders and members through the finger scan program
that commenced in the 2014 operating season at Six Flags Great
America in Gurnee, Illinois, and seeks statutory damages,
attorneys' fees and an injunction.

An aggrieved party under BIPA may recover (i) $1,000 if a company
is found to have negligently violated BIPA or (ii) $5,000 if found
to have intentionally or recklessly violated BIPA, plus reasonable
attorneys’ fees in each case.

The complaint does not allege that any information was misused or
disseminated. On April 7, 2017, the trial court certified two
questions for consideration by the Illinois Appellate Court of the
Second District.

On June 7, 2017, the Illinois Appellate Court granted the company's
motion to appeal. Accordingly, two questions regarding the
interpretation of BIPA were certified for consideration by the
Illinois Appellate Court.

On December 21, 2017, the Illinois Appellate Court found in the
company's favor, holding that the plaintiff had to allege more than
a technical violation of BIPA and had to be injured in some way in
order to have a right of action.

On March 1, 2018, the plaintiff filed a petition for leave to
appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. On May 30, 2018, the Illinois
Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's leave to appeal and oral
arguments were heard on November 20, 2018. On January 25, 2019, the
Illinois Supreme Court found in favor of the plaintiff, holding
that the plaintiff does not need to allege an actual injury beyond
the violation of his rights under BIPA in order to proceed with a
complaint.

Six Flags said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend
ourselves against this litigation. Since this litigation is in an
early stage, the outcome is currently not determinable, and a
reasonable estimate of loss or range of loss in excess of the
immaterial amount that we have recorded for this litigation cannot
be made."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.


SK ENERGY: Cleveland Sues Over Illegal Gas Price Fixing Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Asante Cleveland, on behalf of himself, and all others who are
similarly situated v. SK ENERGY AMERICAS, INC.; SK TRADING
INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD., VITOL INC., and JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-75,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00893-WQH-LL (S.D. Cal., May 13, 2020), is brought
for treble damages, equitable relief, and all other relief that
this Court deems just and proper against the Defendants for
violations of the Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act, and California's
Unfair Competition Law relating to their illegal price fixing
scheme to restrain competition in the gasoline and gasoline
blending product spot market in California.

On February 18, 2015, a massive explosion ripped through the
ExxonMobil gas refinery in Torrance, California. At the time of the
explosion, the ExxonMobil gas refinery supplied about 1/5th of the
gasoline sold in Southern California and about 1/10th of the
gasoline sold across the state of California. The Defendants--who
are major traders in the spot market for gasoline and gasoline
blending products in California, along with their
employees--carried out an illegal price fixing scheme while using
the explosion at the gas refinery in Torrance as cover for said
Scheme.

Prior to the explosion, the Plaintiff alleges, the Defendants had
already begun secretly working together; this occurred by way of
the lead spot market traders for both SK and Vitol who had been
former colleagues when they worked together at Vitol. These two
traders, in addition to other employees, worked on behalf of the
Defendants to restrain competition in the gasoline and gasoline
blending product spot market in California from February 18, 2015
through the end of 2016, he adds.

The Defendants carried out this Scheme to the detriment of
California consumers, like the Plaintiff, and were able to do so
by: (1) deploying sham transactions to obfuscate the actual supply
and demand for gasoline in California, (2) trading amongst
themselves with the intent of creating spikes in the gasoline spot
market, and (3) entering into unreported arrangements amongst
themselves to share the profits made as a result of the scheme.

The Defendants' illegal conduct came to light on May 4, 2020, when
California Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, filed a redacted
complaint alleging in detail how the Defendants rigged the spot
price of gasoline in California, in violation of the Cartwright Act
and California's Unfair Competition Law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased gasoline frequently from retail locations
in this District.

SK Energy is a California corporation with its principal place of
business in Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Azar, Esq.
          MILBERG PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP
          16755 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92606
          Phone: 212-594-5300
          Email: dazar@milberg.com

               - and -

          Peggy Wedgworth, Esq.
          Andrei Rado, Esq.
          Blake Yagman, Esq.
          MILBERG PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1920
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-594-5300
          Email: pwedgworth@milberg.com
                 arado@milberg.com
                 byagman@milberg.com


SMART & FINAL: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Alcazar Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ALCAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SMART & FINAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; APOLLO MANAGEMENT L.P., a Delaware limited partnership;
and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-02921-JD (N.D. Cal.,
April 28, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their Web site to be fully and
equally accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights
Act.

Because the Defendant's Web site, https://www.smartandfinal.com/,
is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers in violation of the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will
become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments,
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.

Smart & Final is a chain of warehouse-style food and supply stores
based in Commerce, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: lit@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Can Compel Arbitration in Sollinger Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAYLOR SOLLINGER, Plaintiff, v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-5977 (JPO) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge J. Paul
Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York (i) granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration, and
(ii) denied as moot the Plaintiff's motion for oral argument.

Taylor Sollinger commenced the putative class action against
Defendant SmileDirectClub, a company that sells custom aligners to
straighten teeth.  Sollinger claims that SmileDirectClub's aligners
caused him tooth damage. Accordingly, Sollinger brings claims under
state and federal law.

SmileDirectClub is a company that offers remote home dentistry
services, including the sale of custom aligners for straightening
teeth.  One of its customers is Sollinger, who began using
SmileDirectClub's aligners in 2017.  

In order to begin treatment, Sollinger was first required to
register as a customer on SmileDirectClub's website.  During the
online registration process, Sollinger affirmatively checked a box
indicating that he agreed to SmileDirectClub's "Informed Consent,"
"Terms," and "SmilePay Conditions."  The Informed Consent is
presented to users as a hyperlink that, when clicked, takes the
user to a separate page that displays the text of the agreement.
The Informed Consent agreement contains the arbitration provision.

Shortly after beginning use of SmileDirectClub's aligners,
Sollinger experienced tooth pain and sensitivity.  He sought
treatment from a dentist, who advised him that two teeth were
cracked and required fillings. The dentist ascribed the tooth
damage to SmileDirectClub's aligners.

In 2019, Sollinger commenced the suit against SmileDirectClub on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers, owners, and users of
SmileDirectClub aligners.  Sollinger brings claims under both state
and federal law.  SmileDirectClub has moved to compel arbitration.

Judge Oetken concludes that based on the undisputed facts that a
reasonable user would be on inquiry notice of the Informed Consent
agreement.  At any rate, the Informed Consent agreement is a
logical location for an arbitration provision governing the
resolution of disputes -- such as medical malpractice suits -- that
would arise out of the use of SmileDirectClub's aligners.  The
"Terms" agreement has no application to Sollinger's claim, which
arises out of medical treatment and not the use of
SmileDirectClub's website.  Accordingly, the arbitration provision
remains intact.  The Court concludes that the parties have indeed
agreed to arbitrate.

The correct decisionmaker is the arbitrator.  Although there is a
general presumption that the issue of arbitrability should be
resolved by the courts, the presumption can be overcome by "clear
and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended that the
question of arbitrability will be decided by the arbitrator.  The
Informed Consent agreement provides that any arbitration will be
resolved using the rules of the American Arbitration Association.
Thus, an arbitrator -- and not the Court -- should determine
whether any of the disputes in this case are subject to arbitration
under the Informed Consent agreement.

That raises the question of remedy.  When a plaintiff's claims are
arbitrable, the ordinary remedy contemplated by the Federal
Arbitration Act is a stay.  But when all of the issues raised in a
complaint are subject to arbitration, dismissal is appropriate.
That is so in the case.  Accordingly, the case is dismissed, the
Court holds.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Oetken granted the Defendant's
motion to compel arbitration.  Plaintiff's motion for oral argument
is denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 18, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/JnIEnI from Leagle.com.

Taylor Sollinger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Jay Stone, Bragar, Eagel
& Squire P.C., Lawrence P. Eagel, Bragar, Eagel & Squire P.C. &
Justin Aaron Kuehn -- jkuehn@moorekuehn.com -- Moore Kuehn, PLLC.

SmileDirectClub, LLC, Defendant, represented by David Rammelt,
Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff, Michael Jason Barrie, Benesch
Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP, Nicholas Secco --
nsecco@beneschlaw.com -- Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff &
Sean A. Meluney -- smeluney@beneschlaw.com -- Benesch Friedlander
Coplan & Aronoff.


SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Petition for Review in St. Lucie Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Energy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that Company's petition for
review of the trial court's decision in the putative class action
suit initiated by St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters'
Pension Trust, with the Texas Supreme Court remains pending.

On October 17, 2016, the St. Lucie County Fire District
Firefighters' Pension Trust filed a putative class action in the
61st District Court in Harris County, Texas, against the Company,
certain of its former officers and current and former directors and
the underwriters on behalf of itself and others that purchased
certain depositary shares from the Company's January 2015 equity
offering, alleging material misstatements and omissions in the
registration statement for that offering.

The Company removed the case to federal court, but after a decision
by the United States Supreme Court in an unrelated case that these
types of cases are not subject to removal, the federal court
remanded the case to the Texas state court.

The Texas trial court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, and
in February 2020, the court of appeals declined to exercise
discretion to reverse the trial court’s decision.

The Company filed a petition to review the trial court's decision
with the Texas Supreme Court, which remains pending.

The Company carries insurance for the claims asserted against it
and the officer and director defendants, and the carrier has
accepted coverage. The Company denies all allegations and intends
to continue to defend this case vigorously.

Southwestern Energy said, "The Company does not expect this case to
have a material adverse effect on the results of operations,
financial position or cash flows of the Company after taking
insurance into account. Additionally, it is not possible at this
time to estimate the amount of any additional loss, or range of
loss, that is reasonably possible."

Southwestern Energy Company, an independent energy company, engages
in the exploration, development, and production of natural gas and
oil in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Exploration and Production, and Midstream. Southwestern Energy
Company was founded in 1929 and is headquartered in Spring, Texas.


SPARK ENERGY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss IUE-CWA 901 Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IUE-CWA LOCAL 901, on behalf of itself and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SPARK ENERGY, LLC,
Defendant, Cause No. 1:19-CV-389-HAB (N.D. Ind.), Judge Holly A.
Brady of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, denied the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss.

The Plaintiff, IUE-CWA Local 901, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, brings claims against Defendant Spark,
for violations of Indiana's Deceptive Consumer Sales Act ("IDCSA"),
breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and unjust enrichment.  The Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant is an alternative natural gas supplier that engaged in a
classic bait-and-switch deceptive and unfair marketing scheme aimed
at those hoping to save on the cost of natural gas, when it
promised competitive variable rates based on market prices.  In
actuality, the Defendant's prices were much higher than the rates
otherwise available in the natural gas market.

The Defendant is an "alternative natural gas supplier" or "ANGS."
It sells natural gas to commercial and residential consumers.  The
Plaintiff is a labor union located in Fort Wayne, Indiana, who was
a customer of the Defendant from 2004 through March 2019.

The matter is before the Court upon the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  It
asserts that the applicable statute of limitations bar all claims,
which they contend accrued fifteen years ago when the Plaintiff
began receiving natural gas from the Defendant, or thirteen years
ago when the fixed rate was converted to a variable rate.  As
additional grounds for dismissal, the Defendant argues that the
Complaint allegations fail to set forth plausible claims for relief
under the IDCSA, or for breach of contract, breach of the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, or unjust enrichment.

In response, the Plaintiff argues that there is no statute of
limitations bar because a separate actionable violation occurred
each time the Plaintiff paid the charged rate for natural gas that
was not based on market prices.  The Plaintiff asserts that all the
claims are supported by factual allegations that plausibly state
its entitlement to relief.

The Plaintiff filed its Complaint on Aug. 14, 2019, which is
significantly more than two years after the parties initially
entered into a contract for natural gas.  At this point in the
proceedings, Judge Brady does not delve into the distinctions
between incurable deceptive acts and uncured deceptive acts as it
relates to the statute of limitations.  Given the breadth of the
language in subsection (a) of Indiana Code Section 24-5-0.5-3,
which includes an unfair, abusive, or deceptive act, omission, or
practice in connection with a consumer transaction, she Court finds
that the Complaint alleges that Defendant engaged in such conduct
within two years of the filing of the Complaint.  The Plaintiff has
alleged a "price gouging scheme" that continued from month to
month, and that was deceptive based on statements that its pricing
was based on market prices.  Accordingly, the IDSCA claim will not
be dismissed on grounds that it is untimely.

Next, Indiana statutes must be construed by using the plain and
ordinary meanings of terms, unless doing so would result in a
construction that is plainly repugnant to the intent of the
legislature or of the context of the statute.  It stands to reason
that if the Plaintiff, a corporation, is considered a "person"
under the Act, it can make purchases of items and services that are
primarily for that corporation's personal use.  In the case, the
clear implication of the Complaint is that the purchase of natural
gas was for that corporation's personal use.  The Plaintiff did not
sell the natural gas to other consumers.  Rather, it was using the
natural gas as a source of energy like any other consumer would.
Accordingly, the Judge does not dismiss the IDSCA claim on grounds
that it does not involve a consumer transaction.

As a separate ground for dismissal, the Defendant argues that the
Complaint fails to allege that anyone acting on behalf of the
Plaintiff relied upon any statements in the contract in making the
decision to purchase natural gas from the Defendant instead of from
its previous supplier.  The Judge finds that the Complaint
allegations sufficiently state that the "market price" language in
the 2004 contract was a factor that induced the Plaintiff to
contract with the Defendant to provide the Plaintiff with natural
gas.  For purposes of pleading, the Plaintiff has sufficiently
provided the time, manner, and content of the purported
misrepresentation that it relied upon.  Whether the Plaintiff will
be able to prove such reliance is not a question to be answered at
this stage of the litigation.

As for breach of contract claim, the Court agrees that the
Plaintiff's allegations of breach appear to fall within the second
type of continuing violation.  Accordingly, the Court will not
dismiss the breach of contract claim on statute of limitations
grounds.

Finally, the ambiguity of the contractual language, combined with
the absence of any language granting the Defendant price-setting
discretion or indicating that non-market factors might impact
pricing, as well as the significant rate differential over the
local utility rate, lead the Court to conclude that Sevugan does
not require dismissal of the Complaint for failure to plausibly
assert a breach of contract claim.

For the reasons stated, Judge Brady denied the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 18, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/LMb7Ms from Leagle.com.

IUE-CWA Local 901, on behalf of itself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lynn A. Toops --
LTOOPS@COHENANDMALAD.COM -- Cohen & Malad LLP.

Spark Energy, LLC, Defendant, represented by Krissy A. Katzenstein
-- krissy.katzenstein@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP.


SPIRIT AIRLINES: Refuses COVID-19 Ticket Refund, Diaz Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MINELY DIAZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. SPIRIT AIRLINES Corporation, INC., a Delaware Defendant, Case
No. 0:20-cv-60933-RKA (S.D. Fla., May 8, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's refusal to refund tickets for cancelled flights.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has sought to shift its
losses onto its innocent passengers, furthering the financial
hardship endured by people across the country amid COVID-19
pandemic.

According to the complaint, each of the Defendant's airfare tickets
encompasses a contractual agreement between it and its passengers.
That agreement gives passengers the right to a refund if their
flight is cancelled. With mounting cancellations due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has
sought to refrain from paying out the refunds for cancelled flights
to which its passengers are entitled.

This class action is brought against the Defendant for breach of
contract and seeks an order requiring the Defendant to refrain from
issuing coupons in lieu of refunds to any Class member who has not
requested coupons; and pay damages and/or restitution to Plaintiff
and Class members.

Spirit is the leading ultra low cost carrier in the United States,
the Caribbean and Latin America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN PA
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

               - and -

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
          rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          David R. Dubin, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
          LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
          975 E. Jefferson Ave.
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Telephone: 313 392-0015
          Facsimile: 313 392-0025
          E-mail: ddubin@ldclassaction.com
                  ncoulson@ldclassaction.com


ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY: Patel Demands COVID-19 Tuition Refunds
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHIV PATEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02114 (E.D.N.Y., May 8,
2020), alleges that St. John's refused to refund the fees tied to
on-campus services and amenities that all students are required to
pay each semester despite the harsh reality that students could no
longer live and learn on campus because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In March 2020, in response to the outbreak of COVID-19, St. John's,
like many other universities, moved all learning online for the
remainder of the Spring 2020 semester and required students living
in on-campus housing to move out and leave campus. St. John's
closed off access to all buildings, including residence halls, the
dining hall, libraries and recreation services, and ordered
students to refrain from coming to campus, says the complaint.

Mr. Patel seeks damages, restitution, and declaratory relief
resulting from St. John's retention of the full tuition and fees
paid by him and the other putative Class Members for services not
being provided. Specifically, this lawsuit seeks disgorgement of
the pro-rated, unused amounts of the Fees that Mr. Patel and other
putative Class Members paid, but for which they (or the students on
behalf of whom they paid) will not be provided the benefit, as well
as a partial tuition reimbursement to compensate for the diminished
value of remote instruction along with the portion of the tuition
that funds on-campus services, facilities, and extra-curricular
activities that ceased when St. John's closed the campus.

Mr. Patel enrolled at St. John's for the "Spring 2020 semester,"
which was scheduled to run from January 22, 2020, through May 13,
2020. Mr. Patel has not had access to campus since February 28,
2020, because the university closed for spring break from March
2-7, 2020, and after that the campus was closed due to COVID-19.

St. John's is a private, not-for-profit university.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          James C. Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          52 Duane Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 419-0156
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: lrubinow@sfmslaw.com
                  jshah@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Anna C. Haac, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: ahaac@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          Joshua R. Levine, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  streisfeld@kolawyers.com
                  levine@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 389-0600
          Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
          E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com


STATE AUTO: Big Tomato Sues Over Denial to Cover COVID-19 Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
BIG TOMATO LLC d/b/a TABELLA v. STATE AUTO PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE CO., Case No. 2:20-cv-00086-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss., May 8,
2020), is brought against State Auto for a declaratory judgment of
rights and obligations under contracts of insurance and over State
Auto's anticipated breach of insurance policies by denial of
business interruption and extra expense coverage, and additional
coverages for the Plaintiff and similarly situated all-risk
commercial property insurance policyholders.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of policyholders, who have
suffered enormous business income losses and related covered
expenses resulting from civil authority orders putting in place
measures to stop the spread of the deadly COVID-19 outbreak.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization Director General
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreysus declared the COVID-19 outbreak a
worldwide pandemic. On March 16, 2020, President Donald Trump, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and member of the
national Coronavirus Task Force issued to the American public
guidance, styled as "30 Days to Slow the Spread" for stopping the
spread of COVID-19. The result of these far-reaching restrictions
and prohibitions has been catastrophic for most non-essential
businesses, especially restaurants and other food service
businesses like the Plaintiff.

This action seeks declaratory judgment that affirms that the
COVID-19 pandemic and the corresponding response by civil
authorities to stop the spread of the outbreak triggers coverage,
has caused physical property loss and damage to the insured
property, provides coverage for future civil authority orders that
result in future suspensions or curtailments of business
operations, and finds that State Auto is liable for the losses
suffered by policyholders.

The Plaintiff serves Italian & American meals, including
family-style dishes.

The Defendant provides insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          David McMullan, Jr., Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          404 Court Square
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
                  dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com


STERLING JEWELERS: Court Enters Final Judgment in Hudson Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LARRY HUDSON, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiff, v. STERLING JEWELERS INC., an Ohio corporation, SIGNET
JEWELERS LIMITED; a foreign corporation, and Does 1 through 30,
inclusive; Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-09301-DSF (JEMx) (C.D.
Cal.), Judge Dale S. Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California entered Judgment in accordance with
the Court's Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement and the Parties' Joint Stipulation of Class
Action Settlement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 18, 2020 Judgment is
available at https://is.gd/9jsfmL from Leagle.com.

Larry Hudson, individually and on gehalf of all other persons
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff,
represented by Brittanee Marksbury -- marksbury@employeejustice.law
-- Berenji Law Firm APC, Shadie Latae Berenji --
berenii@employeejustice.law -- Berenji Law Firm APC & Hagit
Goltzer, Berneji Law Firm APC.

Sterling Jewelers Inc., an Ohio corporation & Signet Jewelers
Limited, a foreign corporation, Defendants, represented by Timothy
L. Johnson -- tim.johnson@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash
Smoak and Stewart PC, Jesse C. Ferrantella --
jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and
Stewart PC, Tracie L. Childs -- tracie.childs@ogletree.com --
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart PC & Spencer C. Skeen --
spencer.skeen@ogletree.com -- Olgletree Deakins Nash Smoak and
Stewart PC.


STRAFFORD COUNTY, NH: Class Action Seeks Release of ICE Detainees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seacoast Online reports that activists staged a car rally protest
on April 26 at the Strafford County Corrections urging authorities
to release non-violent immigrants held at the facility to help
prevent the spread of coronavirus.

The protest, which drew 65 drivers, according to organizers, was
the third and largest of its kind held over the last three
weekends. Never Again Action NH organized the rallies.

"It is nice to see that every week it is growing. It fills my heart
to see how we're coming together for humankind," said Eva Castillo,
director of NH Alliance for Immigrants and Refugees in a prepared
statement.

There are currently about 60 Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) detainees in the facility, according to Strafford County
officials. ICE released two on April 22. One inmate at the
Strafford County jail is being quarantined with test results
pending, after arriving from a different jail where an employee
tested positive, organizers said.

The ACLU and four law firms filed a class action lawsuit on April
17 against Immigration and Customs Enforcement seeking the
immediate release of all ICE civil detainees from the Strafford
County jail.

Strafford County Jail has a federal contract with ICE to house
undocumented immigrants going through immigration proceedings.
These detainees are typically brought to the jail from elsewhere in
New England for several days before they are transferred
elsewhere.

"Detaining people for immigration violations during a pandemic is a
completely unacceptable and irresponsible game of public health
Russian Roulette. We don't know who, and we don't know when, but
some people will get sick, and some people will die," said Ron
Abramson, counsel at Shaheen & Gordon PA, one of the four law firms
in a statement. "The only way to minimize that possibility is to
release as many people from detention as possible."

Activities around the U.S. are pushing for authorities to release
detainees from other facilities where ICE inmates are held. Several
hundred immigrants have already been released from U.S. detention
centers, rally organizers said. Never Again Action stated it is
hopeful that more immigrants will be released from Strafford County
Jail. [GN]


STRIDES PHARMA: Carlo Says Ranitidine Contains Carcinogens
-----------------------------------------------------------
AIDA CARLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. STRIDES PHARMA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-03372 (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2020) is a class action lawsuit
regarding Strides' manufacturing of ranitidine-based prescription
medications that contain dangerously high levels of
N-nitrosodimethylamine ("NDMA"), a carcinogenic and liver-damaging
impurity.

The ranitidine is an over-the-counter and prescription medication
that is designed to decrease the amount of acid created by the
stomach. Ranitidine is intended to be used for the treatment of
heartburn associated with indigestion and sour stomach. However,
Strides's manufacturing process has caused its ranitidine
medications to contain dangerously high levels of NDMA.

On September 13, 2019, the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
issued a statement announcing the presence of NDMA in
ranitidine-containing medications. The FDA's notice states that
"NDMA is classified as a probable human carcinogen based on results
from laboratory tests." Since then, the FDA's own testing "has
found unacceptable levels of NDMA in samples of ranitidine."

According to the complaint, the Defendant breached the warranty
implied in the contract for the sale of the defective ranitidine
medications because they could not pass without objection in the
trade under the contract description, the ranitidine medications
were not of fair or average quality within the description, and the
ranitidine medications were unfit for their intended and ordinary
purpose because the ranitidine medications manufactured,
distributed, and sold by Defendant were defective in that they
contained elevated levels of carcinogenic and liver-toxic NDMA, and
as such are not generally recognized as safe for human consumption.
As a result, Plaintiff and members of the Class and New York
Subclass did not receive the goods as impliedly warranted by
Defendant to be merchantable.

Strides Pharma, Inc. is an East Brunswick, New Jersey-based
pharmaceutical company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          Email: jmarchese@bursor.com
                 aobergfell@bursor.com

                        - and -

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 220
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: swestcot@bursor.com

STUBHUB INC: Kopfmann Seeks Ticket Refunds for Cancelled Events
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE KOPFMANN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. STUBHUB, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-03025-JCS
(N.D. Cal., May 1, 2020), seeks an order requiring StubHub to
promptly refund customers all money paid for tickets to cancelled
events, including service and delivery fees.

The Plaintiff also seeks an award of damages to compensate
StubHub's customers for the loss of use of their money during a
time when cash is at a premium and many families are struggling to
get by.

To prevent the spread of COVID-19, thousands of sporting events,
concerts, and other live performances were canceled and most of the
country took shelter in their homes. The Plaintiff contends that
the prompt cancellation of events should have meant that
ticketholders were promptly refunded their money--money that in
many cases was desperately needed. But that did not happen for
consumers who bought their tickets on the "world's largest ticket
marketplace." Instead, a $4 billion corporation decided that it
needed the money more than its customers, the Plaintiff adds.

According to the complaint, StubHub has achieved tremendous success
over the past two decades thanks to its FanProtect Guarantee--a
trademarked promise that guaranteed consumers they would be
protected against the risks of buying from a ticket reseller. This
highly publicized form of buyers' insurance was the primary reason
StubHub was able to convert a dubious and largely underground
market into more than $1 billion in annual revenue. Yet now that
the time has come to pay out on that buyers' insurance, StubHub is
in effect canceling the policy.

StubHub operates an online platform for secondary ticket
sales.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Schrag, Esq.
          Joshua J. Bloomfield, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: mls@classlawgroup.com
                  jjb@classlawgroup.com


SUGAR FREAK: Panza Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marco R. Chimborazo Panza, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. SUGAR FREAK LLC (D/B/A SUGAR FREAK), MICHELLE
ADDEO, JAMES C. EDDY, and CHECKE RAMIREZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-02177
(E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff also accuses the Defendants of violating the New York
Labor Law and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the
New York Commissioner of Labor.

The Plaintiff alleges that he worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime,
and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked.
Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for
any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay
the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in
which he had to work over 10 hours a day, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a cook at the Defendants'
restaurant.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a New Orleans cuisine
restaurant, located at 37-11 30th Ave., in Long Island City, New
York, under the name "Sugar Freak."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


TCA FUND: Faces Todd Benjamin Contract Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TCA Fund Management
Group Corp. The case is captioned as TODD BENJAMIN INTERNATIONAL,
LTD., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
and derivatively on behalf of the TCA Global Credit Master Fund,
L.P., TCA Global Credit Fund, LP, and TCA Global Credit Fund, Ltd.
v. TCA Fund Management Group Corp., a Florida corporation v. TCA
Fund Management Group Corp., a Florida corporation; ROBERT PRESS;
ALYCE SCHREIBER; WILLIAM FICKLING; THOMAS DAY; PATRICK PRIMAVERA;
DONNA SILVERMAN; and TARA ANTAL, Case No. 1:20-cv-21808-RNS (S.D.
Fla., April 30, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr.

The lawsuit alleges violation of contract-related laws.

TCA Fund offers investment advisory services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Lance Silver, Esq.
          SILVER LAW GROUP
          11780 W. Sample Road
          Coral Springs, FL 33065
          Telephone: (954) 755-4799
          Facsimile: (954) 755-4684
          E-mail: ssilver@silverlaw.com

               - and -

          Aaron Michael Cohn, Esq.
          WEINBERG, WHEELER, HUDGINS, GUNN & DIAL
          2601 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33133-5408
          Telephone: (305) 455-9500
          Facsimile: (305) 455-9501
          E-mail: acohn@wwhgd.com


TENNESSEE: TD's Western Challenges Shutting Down of Businesses
--------------------------------------------------------------
TD's Western Wear and Tack, LLC, class plaintiff, as well as all
other similar situated individuals including but not limited to
foreign entities v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, and GOVERNOR BILL LEE, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00206 (E.D. Tenn., May 13, 2020), is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated businesses
across the State of Tennessee, which were adversely affected by
being ordered to shut down by way of Governor Bill Lee's Orders.

The Orders blatantly violate the Due Process rights and fundamental
constitutional rights of the Plaintiff and all similarly situated
businesses, according to the complaint. Furthermore, the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, applicable to the
Defendants herein--who at all times material hereto were acting
under color of state law--guarantees Plaintiff, and all other
similarly situated businesses, the right to be free from the
deprivation of its liberty and property interests without Due
Process of law.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it has been
interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, has two separate
prongs: substantive Due Process and procedural Due Process.
Procedural Due Process requires fair notice and fair hearing;
whereas substantive Due Process challenges the very nature of the
government's actions and laws. Clearly, the Plaintiff, and all
similarly situated businesses, were not provided fair notice of the
shutdown Order(s) before they occurred; neither have they been
afforded a fair hearing to challenge the same, the Plaintiff
contends. More problematic, however, is the fact that the Orders
violate substantive Due Process in a fundamental way never before
authorized by the Supreme Court of the United States, the Plaintiff
adds.

In the alternative, the Orders in question are arbitrary and
capricious (if rational basis is applied) and not narrowly tailored
to promote a compelling governmental interest (if strict scrutiny
is applied), according to the complaint. The Constitution of the
United States does not cease to exist at the desk of any executive
from the President on down, including the Governor of this State.
These Defendants' actions cannot stand unless the Court were to
suspend the rights of the Plaintiff, and all other similarly
situated businesses, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a retail store selling western themed boots and
clothing.

Bill Lee is the Governor of Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russ Egli, Esq.
          THE EGLI LAW FIRM
          The Wisdom Building
          11109 Lake Ridge Drive, FL3
          Concord, TN 37934
          Phone: (865) 304-4125
          Fax: (855) 827-0624
          Email: russelleglilaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Darren V. Berg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DARREN V. BERG
          P.O. Box 33113
          Knoxville, TN 37933
          Phone: (865) 773-8799
          Email: dberglawfirm@gmail.com


TGC ENTERPRISES: Xiong Files Suit in California Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TGC Enterprises Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Chia Xiong, on behalf of others
similarly situated v. TGC Enterprises Inc., Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2020-00278650-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., May 14,
2020).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment."

TGC Enterprises, Inc. was founded in 1997. The Company's line of
business includes the marketing of semifinished metal
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N Brand Blvd., Ste. 705
          Glendale, CA 91203-1989
          Phone: (818) 230-8380
          Fax: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com


TIKTOK INC: DM Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometric Identifiers
-------------------------------------------------------------
D.M., a minor, through her Guardian, D.H., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. TIKTOK, INC. and
BYTEDANCE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02884 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2020),
is brought for damages resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendants in capturing, collecting, storing and using the
Plaintiff's biometric identifiers and biometric information without
first obtaining informed written consent or providing the requisite
data retention and destruction policies, in direct violation of the
Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants use the popular TikTok
App to collect, capture, obtain, store and, disclose and otherwise
disseminate Illinois resident minor TikTok users' facial geometric
scans. The Defendants do not inform the App's users that their
biometric data is being collected, captured, received, obtained,
stored, and/or used by the App. Nor do the Defendants disclose what
they do with that data, who has access to that data, and whether,
where, and for how long that data is stored.

Plaintiff D.M., a minor, and the Plaintiff's guardian, D.H., are
Illinois residents.

TikTok is a popular video-sharing social networking service used to
create short videos, favored by children and teens.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
          Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Phone: (224) 632-4500
          Fax: (224) 632-4521
          Email: dmillen@fklmlaw.com
                 bhogan@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          923 Fayette St.
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Phone: (610) 234-6487
          Fax: (224) 632-4521
          Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
                 kjustice@fklmlaw.com


TIKTOK INC: Faces KM Suit Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
K.M., a Minor, through her Guardian, C.M., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. TIKTOK, INC. and
BYTEDANCE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02883 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2020),
is brought against the Defendants for violating the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting the biometric
information of the Plaintiff, and then disclosing and disseminating
those biometric identifiers and information to other related
corporate entities without providing written notice and procuring
releases.

The Act prohibits, inter alia, the collection, dissemination, and
profit from individual's biometric identifiers, such as facial
geometry, without providing written notice and procuring a release
from the individuals. The Act also requires specific a retention
and data destruction policies to safeguard the sensitive biometric
data and, ultimately, prevent its disclosure.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have collected, stored,
disclosed and otherwise disseminated Illinois resident minor TikTok
users' facial geometric scans. In so doing, the Defendants failed
to comply with the Act's requirements to provide written notice and
procuring releases. As such, the Plaintiff and the putative class
have suffered harm as a result of the violations of the Act. The
Defendants also violated Illinois' public policy that grants
citizens the power to make decisions about the fate of their unique
biometric identifiers and information.

Plaintiff K.M., a minor, and the Plaintiff's Guardian, C.M., were
both residents of Illinois.

TikTok, Inc., owns TikTok, a popular social networking application
that allows users to share videos and that has been reportedly
downloaded 1.5 billion times.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard R. Gordon, Esq.
          GORDON LAW OFFICES, LTD.
          111 West Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 332-5200
          Fax: (312) 242-4966
          Email: rrg@gordonlawchicago.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kenny, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
          1109 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Phone: (610) 200-0581
          Email: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
                 jbk@sstriallawyers.com


TIKTOK INC: SA Sues Over Illegal Collection and Use of Biometrics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S.A., a minor, by and through his mother and guardian, Maritza A.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
TIKTOK, INC., a California corporation, and BYTEDANCE, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-03294-NC (N.D. Cal., May 14,
2020), arises from the illegal actions of TikTok in collecting,
storing, and using the Plaintiff's biometric identifiers and
biometric information without informed written consent, in direct
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

In direct violation of each of the provisions of the BIPA, TikTok
is actively collecting, storing, and using--without providing
notice, obtaining informed written consent, or publishing data
retention policies--the biometrics of millions of unwitting
individuals, who use the TikTok app, according to the complaint.
The TikTok App's playful features rely on the undisclosed use of
its users' private, biometric information.

The App scans a user's facial geometry before running an algorithm
to determine a user's age, and uses facial scans to allow users to
superimpose animated facial filters onto moving faces in videos on
the App. The Plaintiff alleges that TikTok fails to inform the
App's users that their biometric data is being collected, captured,
received, obtained, stored, and/or used by the App. The Plaintiff
adds that TikTok similarly fails to disclose what it does with that
biometric data, who has access to that data, and whether, where,
and for how long that data is stored.

Plaintiff S.A. is a minor and a resident and citizen of Illinois.

The TikTok App is one of the most popular social media networking
apps in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Theodore Maya, Esq.
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                 rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                 tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
                 bking@ahdootwolfson.com


TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Denies Coverage of COVID-19 Losses, Real Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REAL HOSPITALITY, LLC d/b/a EDS BURGER JOINT v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:20-cv-00087-KS-MTP (S.D.
Miss., May 8, 2020), arises out of Traveler's actual and
anticipated breach of insurance policies by denial of business
interruption and extra expense coverage, and additional coverages,
for the Plaintiff and similarly situated all-risk commercial
property insurance policyholders.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of policyholders, who have
suffered enormous business income losses and related covered
expenses resulting from civil authority orders putting in place
measures to stop the spread of the deadly COVID-19 outbreak.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization Director General
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreysus declared the COVID-19 outbreak a
worldwide pandemic. On March 16, 2020, President Donald Trump, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and member of the
national Coronavirus Task Force issued to the American public
guidance, styled as "30 Days to Slow the Spread" for stopping the
spread of COVID-19. The result of these far-reaching restrictions
and prohibitions has been catastrophic for most non-essential
businesses, especially restaurants and other food service
businesses like the Plaintiff, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment of rights and obligations
under contracts of insurance.

Travelers sells property insurance in the State of
Mississippi.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John "Don" Barrett, Esq.
          David McMullan, Jr., Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          404 Court Square
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
                  mcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com


TURK HAVA: Faces Milosevic Suit in N.Y. Over Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Turk Hava Yollari
A.O, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Milica Milosevic, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Turk Hava
Yollari A.O, Inc., doing business as: Turkish Airlines, a foreign
corporation; and Turkish Airlines, Inc., a New York corporation,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03328-LJL (S.D.N.Y., April 28, 2020)

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman.

The lawsuit demands $5 million in damages alleging breach of
contract.

Turkish Airlines is the flag carrier of Turkish air
transportation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Dubin, Esq.
          Nicholas Alexander Coulson, Esq.
          LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
          975 E. Jefferson Ave.
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Telephone: (313) 392-0015
          Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
          E-mail: ddubin@ldclassaction.com
                  ncoulson@ldclassaction.com


TWIN CITY: Refuses to Cover COVID-19 Losses, Cosmetic Laser Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
COSMETIC LASER, INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
3:20-cv-00638 (D. Conn., May 8, 2020), arises out of Twin City's
refusal to pay its insureds under its Business Income, Civil
Authority, and Extra Expense coverages for losses suffered due to
COVID-19, any orders by civil authorities that have required the
necessary suspension of business, and any efforts to prevent
further property damage or to minimize the suspension of business
and continue operations.

In return for the payment of a premium, Twin City issued Policy No.
61 SBA BD9902 to the Plaintiff for a policy period of February 8,
2020, to February 8, 2021, including a Specialty Property Coverage
Form. The Plaintiff says it has performed all of its obligations
under the Policy, including the payment of premiums. The Plaintiff
contends that the losses due to COVID-19 are a Covered Cause of
Loss under Twin City policies with the Special Property Coverage
Form.

The Plaintiff was forced to suspend or reduce business at Cosmetic
Laser Medi Spa due to COVID-19 and the resultant closure orders
issued by civil authorities in Ohio, says the complaint.

On March 18, 2020, the State of Ohio issued a civil authority order
requiring the closure of barbershops, hair salons, and nail salons
in Ohio like the Plaintiff.

Cosmetic Laser owns and operates the Cosmetic Laser Medi Spa, which
has locations in Mentor and Chardon, Ohio. Cosmetic Laser Medi Spa
offers an array of affordable cosmetic treatments, such as laser
hair removal.

Twin City offers property and casualty insurance products and
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathleen L. Nastri, Esq.
          KOSKOFF KOSKOFF & BIEDER PC
          350 Fairfield Avenue, Suite 501
          Bridgeport, CT 06604
          Telephone: 203-336-4421
          E-mail: knastri@koskoff.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          Mark Hamill, Esq.
          Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, 6th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                  akeller@dicellolevitt.com
                  dferri@dicellolevitt.com
                  mhamill@dicellolevitt.com
                  lreasons@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
          Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
          Mark Abramowitz, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          7556 Mentor Avenue
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Telephone: 440-953-88
          E-mail: kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com
                  madicello@dicellolevitt.com
                  mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Mark Lanier, Esq.
          Alex Brown, Esq.
          Skip McBride, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC
          10940 West Sam Houston Parkway North, Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77064
          Telephone: 713-659-5200
          E-mail: WML@lanierlawfirm.com
                  alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com
                  skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
          Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
          Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
          Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
          BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP
          One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: 608-286-2302
          E-mail: tburns@bbblawllp.com
                  jbowen@bbblawllp.com
                  jbair@bbblawllp.com
                  fbowen@bbblawllp.com

               - and -

          Douglas Daniels, Esq.
          DANIELS & TREDENNICK
          6363 Woodway, Suite 700
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: 713-917-0024
          E-mail: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com


UNDER ARMOUR: Andrews Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES ANDREWS, for Himself,
as a Private Attorney General, and/or on Behalf of All Others
Similarly v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC., UNDER ARMOUR RETAIL, INC., UNDER
ARMOUR RETAIL OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case
No. CIV-DS-2007610 (Filed March 11, 2020), was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Los Angeles) on May 8, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-00997 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
the False Advertising Law, and the Unfair Competition Law.

Under Armour is an American company that manufactures footwear,
sports, and casual apparel.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Shawn R. Obi, Esq.
          William M. Wardlaw, Esq.
          Daniel M. Blouin, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          333 S. Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
          Telephone: (213) 615-1700
          Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
          E-mail: sobi@winston.com
                  dblouin@winston.com
                  wwardlaw@winston.com


UNITED DRUG: Wrongfully Classifies Employees, Batlle Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA ALEJANDRA BATLLE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. UNITED DRUG SUPPLY, INC.; and SAMANTHA
GODFREY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00412 (M.D.N.C., May 8, 2020), arises out
of the Defendants' systemic, company-wide wrongful classification
of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees as exempt
from overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants violated the FLSA by not compensating the Plaintiff
and all those similarly situated for all hours worked in excess of
40 per week as required by law, according to the complaint.

Ms. Batlle worked for the Defendants as both a salaried exempt and
hourly employee, on and off, from 2013 through August 2019. Yet,
she contends that the duties were the same whether she was
classified as a salaried exempt or hourly employee.

UDS is a pharmaceutical distributor company. Ms. Godfrey is
co-owner, president and CEO of UDS.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gilda Adriana Hernandez, Esq.
          Charlotte C. Smith, Esq.
          Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741-8693
          Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
          E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  rtucci@gildahernandezlaw.com


UNITED STATES: Samma Sues DoD in D.D.C. Alleging Violation of APA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Department of
Defense, et al. The case is captioned as ANGE SAMMA, ABNER BOUOMO,
AHMAD ISIAKA, MICHAEL PEREZ, SUMIN PARK, and YU MIN LEE, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE; and MARK ESPER, in his official capacity as Secretary of
Defense, Case No. 1:20-cv-01104-ESH (D.D.C., April 28, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ellen S. Huvelle.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act
involving review or appeal of agency decision.

USDOD is an executive branch department of the federal government
charged with coordinating and supervising all agencies and
functions of the government directly related to national security
and the United States Armed Forces.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brett Max Kaufman, Esq.
          Scarlet Kim, Esq.
          Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq.
          Noor Zafar, Esq.
          Jonathan Hafetz, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2603
          Facsimile: (212) 549-2654
          E-mail: bkaufman@aclu.org
                  scarletk@aclu.org
                  artspitzer@gmail.com
                  nzafar@aclu.org
                  jhafetz@aclu.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Liam Holland, Esq.
          Nathan Michael Swinton, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          1100 L Street NW, Room 11318
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-4964
          E-mail: liam.c.holland@usdoj.gov
                  nathan.m.swinton@usdoj.gov


UNITED STATES: SPLC Nationwide Class Suit vs. ICE Gets Green Light
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Poverty Law Center said that a federal judge ruled in
April that a nationwide class action lawsuit against Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) can proceed, greenlighting a challenge to ICE's
system-wide failure to provide standard medical and mental health
care and disability accommodations for people in its custody.

U.S. District Court Judge Jesus Bernal issued the ruling in the
lawsuit filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Disability
Rights Advocates (DRA), Civil Rights Education and Enforcement
Center (CREEC), Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Willkie Farr
& Gallagher LLP. The plaintiffs seek zero monetary damages and
instead only an end to the inhumane and traumatic experience of ICE
detention affecting tens of thousands across the country.

Judge Bernal denied the government's motion to divide the
nationwide lawsuit into 15 individual cases in eight district
courts. He also denied ICE's motion to strike the 200-page
complaint, which was filed in the U.S District Court for the
Central District of California in August 2019.

The ruling comes amid the spread of Covid-19 in detention centers,
a dangerous scenario that doctors and public health experts across
the country have warned will only be made worse by ICE's lack of
pre-existing medical care and substandard detention center
conditions. On March 25, the groups filed an emergency preliminary
injunction motion in the case requiring ICE to immediately fix
numerous deficiencies in its Covid-19 response, such as inadequate
staffing, resources and oversight. The motion further seeks the
immediate release of medically vulnerable people if ICE cannot or
will not take immediate steps to protect those who are in its
custody. Judge Bernal has yet to rule on that injunction.   

"Today, the court rejected ICE's false narrative that our
plaintiffs' stories represent just a few individual problems," said
Lisa Graybill, SPLC deputy legal director. "The court saw through
ICE's deliberate mischaracterization of our case. This is the first
step in holding ICE to account for its appalling treatment of the
tens of thousands of immigrants needlessly incarcerated and
languishing in its prisons around the country."

According to the lawsuit, ICE has failed to provide detained
migrants in over 150 facilities nationwide with safe and humane
conditions, as required by agency standards, federal law and the
U.S. Constitution. Numerous reports, including accounts by internal
government investigators, detail the lack of sufficient medical and
mental health care treatment, ultimately resulting in untreated
medical needs, prolonged suffering and preventable death. ICE's
punitive use of segregation violates the Fifth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution. The agency's failure to ensure that detained
immigrants with disabilities are provided accommodations and do not
face discrimination violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973.

"Mentally, they are killing us," said plaintiff Ruben Mencias Soto.
"What I am living and what I am seeing is not only my situation.
This is unjust as a system. [The government] is falling to the
lowest level with ICE."

Mencias Soto, who has been detained at Adelanto ICE Processing
Center in California for over a year, has dislocated and herniated
discs in his back. He has had his wheelchair and crutches taken
away by detention staff, leaving him without a device to help him
walk and causing immense pain.

"Across the country, ICE continually fails to provide basic medical
care and necessary disability accommodations to people in
immigration detention – putting thousands of people in
life-threatening danger every day. From holding people with
disabilities in solitary confinement solely because of their
medical needs to denying patients in detention doctor-ordered
emergency medical care, ICE has demonstrated incompetence and
cruelty toward people with disabilities. Disability Rights
Advocates is committed to fighting for the civil rights of those in
custody until ICE complies with U.S. law," said Stuart Seaborn,
Managing Director of Litigation, Disability Rights Advocates.

"ICE's failure to ensure that private prison companies like the GEO
Group adequately take care of people in their custody has been an
open secret for a long time," said Timothy Fox, co-executive
director of the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center. "We
are pleased that the court will allow us to move forward and
hopefully end the impunity with which this agency and its private
operators have been acting for too long."

Plaintiff Jose Baca Hernandez underscored that the goal of the case
is to "improve health for me and the rest of the people here [in
detention]. This is not only for me. It's so everyone here can be
healthy." During his time in custody, ICE failed to provide Baca
Hernandez--a blind man--with effective communication. He has been
forced to rely on his cellmates, attorneys, and guards to read
documents, including those related to his medical care and
immigration case.

Plaintiff Luis Rodriguez Delgadillo, who has schizophrenia and
bipolar disorder, had reached a considerable measure of mental
health stability before his detention. In detention, however, his
shifting medication regime, lack of therapy and the failure of
mental health staff to mitigate stressors have caused his mental
health to noticeably decline.

This case is about fighting to ensure "we all can get better
treatment," Rodriguez Delgadillo said. "Some people don't have the
means or are scared to speak, so we fight for everyone else."

The parties will work with the court to set the schedule for the
litigation of the case.  [GN]


UNITED STATES: Trump Sued Over Coronavirus Aid Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Colton, writing for Washington Examiner, reports that an
Illinois man filed a lawsuit against President Trump and other
high-ranking Republicans over a provision of the coronavirus relief
package that could deny funds to U. S. citizens married to
immigrants without Social Security numbers.

The plaintiff, named "John Doe" in the class-action lawsuit filed
on April 24, claimed he and the more than 1 million other U.S.
citizens married to "unauthorized" immigrants who don't have Social
Security numbers were discriminated against "based solely on whom
he chose to marry."

Doe claims his wife pays taxes and uses a Taxpayer Identification
Number, which is issued by the IRS, instead of a Social Security
number. The two reportedly file joint taxes but did not receive any
payment from the $2.2 trillion aid package passed in March. People
earning less than $75,000 a year are eligible for $1,200 under the
CARES Act, plus $500 for each child.

The lawsuit alleges a provision added by the Trump administration
requires both partners to have Social Security numbers for either
partner to receive aid money.

"It's a deliberately cruel carve-out," Manar Waheed, senior
legislative and advocacy counsel with the American Civil Liberties
Union, said in the suit.

Doe is demanding the provision be taken out of the CARES Act and
that he receive an unspecified amount of money in damages for
"substantial mental pain and suffering and severe emotional
distress and injury."

In addition to the president, the suit also names Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin as
defendants. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Two Class Action Plaintiffs in ICE Case Released
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Merrill, writing for Granite State News Collaborative,
reports that two Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
detainees have been granted temporary release by government
officials from the Strafford County Department of Corrections.

The release of Darwin Aliesky Cuesta-Rojas and Jose Nolberto
Tacuri-Tacuri, two of three plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit
filed on April 17, came even before a status conference was
scheduled to take place on April 29.

According to Judge Laynda B. McCafferty, the chief judge of the
U.S. District Court for New Hampshire, the government agreed to
release the two detainees before the telephone conference on April
25.

"I did not order their release. No release orders have been issued
in the case yet," she said. "We are having a video hearing on the
legal questions surrounding release/bail."

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Concord, seeks the
immediate release of all Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
civil detainees from Strafford County Department of Corrections
because of unsafe conditions at the jail in relation to the
COVID-19 virus.

"We were happy with the initial order," said Attorney Nathan
Warecki, referring to the move by the court to place the burden on
the government to explain why they're keeping people.

McCaferrty ordered the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and ICE
to provide a good reason for the continued detention of three
people held at Strafford County jail.

Reasons for continued detention could include violent criminal
records or challenges of their medical status, wrote McCafferty.

Tacuri-Tacuri, one of the plaintiffs in the case who suffers from
asthma explained his reasons for joining the lawsuit in a
statement:

"I am bringing this lawsuit because I want to protect not only
myself, but the other immigration detainees at the Strafford County
Department of Corrections. I am afraid of the coronavirus because I
learned from the news that people are infected in detention across
the country. I am concerned that the same thing can happen here."

The other plaintiff on the suit, Robson Xavier Gomes, was not
granted release at this time.

"Our clients are not detained for criminal activity, but only to
await civil immigration action," said David Vicinanzo, leader of
Nixon Peabody's Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
practice and former First Assistant U.S. Attorney for New
Hampshire, in a statement on the ACLU of New Hampshire's website.

"This civil detention places them in grave danger in this pandemic.
Inevitably, one detainee will contract COVID-19, and the risk of
spread throughout the facility is high and potentially lethal."

According to Attorney Ron L. Abramson of Shaheen and Gordon,
securing the release of detainees is time sensitive.

"We can't confirm rumors that there may or may not be infections at
the facility," he said, adding that "discovery is critical in order
to get people's individual situations before a judge."

The time sensitive nature of the case, according to Abrahamson, who
has been working on immigration cases for twenty two years, can't
be stressed enough.

"The government won't release prisoners out of the goodness of
their heart," Abrahamson said, adding that, "We're looking at a
tinderbox and we're trying to get rid of the potential for
conflagration."

Warecki pointed out that Government attorneys have been working
with Strafford County to mitigate an outbreak.

"They're working with the facility," he said, stressing that, "Our
suit is based on the importance of maintaining social distancing
and to know who has COVID-19.

An ACLU press release said that the failure to release detainees in
Dover:
"puts detainees, staff, and the broader community at grave risk of
death or serious injury. The virus is already spreading through
correctional facilities across the country with devastating
consequences. We are demanding immediate action to stem this
outbreak and save lives."

The conditions at the center that demand release for these inmates,
according to the ACLU, include:  Bunk beds placed only two to three
feet apart; detainees sharing sinks, toilets, counters, and
showers; and communal food service, with many people eating at the
same table.

"In light of this crisis and the immense safety concerns we thought
we should go ahead," said Gilles Bissonette, Director for the ACLU
in New Hampshire. Bissotte cited the Sovino case as one reason for
bringing the suit.

"What got our attention was the Savino case in Massachusetts," he
said, referring to another class action lawsuit brought on behalf
of detainees at the Bristol County Jail and House of Correction in
Dartmouth, Massachusetts.

According to Warecki, what comes next is securing bail hearings for
temporary relief for the plaintiffs. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAVEN: Soriano Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Soriano, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAVEN, Case No. 3:20-cv-00662 (D.
Conn., May 13, 2020), seeks refund of the tuition and fees paid for
the Spring 2020 academic semester at the University.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all people, who paid tuition
and fees for the Spring 2020 Semester at the University of New
Haven, and who, because of the university's response to the Novel
Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic, lost the benefit of
the education for which they paid, and/or the services for which
their fees were paid, without having their tuition and fees
refunded to them.

On March 9, 2020, the University of New Haven, via an email from
President Steven H. Kaplan, announced that because of the global
COVID-19 pandemic, all in-person classes would be suspended
effective immediately. The announcement informed students that all
classes would instead be held remotely through online formats.
Since March 9, 2020, the University has not held any in-person
classes. Classes that have continued have only been offered in an
online format, with no in-person instruction.

As a result of the closure of the Defendant's facilities, the
Defendant has not delivered the educational services, facilities,
access and/or opportunities that Ms. Soriano and the putative class
contracted and paid for, according to the complaint. The online
learning options being offered to University of New Haven students
are subpar in practically every aspect, from the lack of
facilities, materials, and access to faculty. Students have been
deprived of the opportunity for collaborative learning and
in-person dialogue, feedback, and critique. The remote learning
options are in no way the equivalent of the in-person education
that Plaintiff and the putative class members contracted and paid
for.

The Plaintiff contends that she and the putative class are,
therefore, entitled to a refund of tuition and fees for in-person
educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that
the Defendant has not provided. Even if the University of New Haven
claims it did not have a choice in cancelling in-person classes, it
nevertheless has improperly retained funds for services it is not
providing, says the complaint.

Ms. Soriano is a graduate student at the University of New Haven
studying public administration.

The University of New Haven is a large private university, with an
enrollment of approximately 7,000 students.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
          REARDON SCANLON LLP
          45 S. Main Street, 3rd Floor
          West Hartford, CT 06110
          Phone: (860) 955-9455
          Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
          Email: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com

               - and -

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Ste. 220
          Miami, FL 33133-5402
          Phone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
          Email: swestcot@bursor.com


US STEEL: Discovery Ongoing in Class Suit Over Clairton Fire
------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit related to the December 24, 2018 fire at
Clairton, Pennsylvania.

On April 24, 2019, U. S. Steel was served with a class action
complaint that was filed in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas
related to the December 24, 2018 fire at Clairton.

The complaint asserts common law nuisance and negligence claims and
seeks compensatory and punitive damages that allegedly were the
result of U. S. Steel's conduct that resulted in the fire and U. S.
Steel's operations subsequent to the fire.

The parties are currently engaged in discovery.

U. S. Steel is vigorously defending the matter.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

United States Steel Corporation produces and sells flat-rolled and
tubular steel products primarily in North America and Europe. It
operates through three segments: North American Flat-Rolled
(Flat-Rolled), U.S. Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products
(Tubular). United States Steel was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


US STEEL: Discovery Ongoing in Shareholder Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in
the shareholder class action suit related to the company's August
2016 secondary public offering (SCO).

On October 2, 2017, an Amended Shareholder Class Action Complaint
was filed in Federal Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania
consolidating previously-filed actions.

Separately, five related shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed
in State and Federal courts in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and the
Delaware Court of Chancery.

The underlying consolidated class action lawsuit alleges that U. S.
Steel, certain current and former officers, an upper level manager
of the Company and the financial underwriters who participated in
the August 2016 secondary public offering of the Company's common
stock (collectively, Defendants) violated federal securities laws
in making false statements and/or failing to discover and disclose
material information regarding the financial condition of the
Company.

The lawsuit claims that this conduct caused a prospective class of
plaintiffs to sustain damages during the period from January 27,
2016 to April 25, 2017 as a result of the prospective class
purchasing the Company's common stock at artificially inflated
prices and/or suffering losses when the price of the common stock
dropped.

The derivative lawsuits generally make the same allegations against
the same officers and also allege that certain current and former
members of the Board of Directors failed to exercise appropriate
control and oversight over the Company and were unjustly
compensated.

The plaintiffs seek to recover losses that were allegedly
sustained.

The class action Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. On
September 29, 2018 the Court ruled on those motions granting them
in part and denying them in part. On March 18, 2019, the plaintiffs
withdrew the claims against the Defendants related to the 2016
secondary offering. As a result, the underwriters are no longer
parties to the case.

The Company and the individual defendants are vigorously defending
the remaining claims. On December 31, 2019, the Court granted
Plaintiffs' motion to certify the proceeding as a class action. The
Company's appeal of that decision has been denied by the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals.

Discovery is proceeding.

United States Steel Corporation produces and sells flat-rolled and
tubular steel products primarily in North America and Europe. It
operates through three segments: North American Flat-Rolled
(Flat-Rolled), U.S. Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products
(Tubular). United States Steel was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

VAIL RESORTS: Faces Class Action Over Epic Ski Pass
---------------------------------------------------
CBS4 reports that attorneys for a man whose family vacation was
interrupted by Colorado ski areas closing in the early stages of
coronavirus pandemic filed a class action lawsuit on April 24 in
Denver federal court. The lawsuit seeks compensation from Vail
Resorts for ski pass money that were not refunded.

Dylan Clarke, an out-of-state skier represented by Colorado
attorney Craig Valentine, planned a mountain vacation with his
parents, sister, and children during the week of March 16. Members
of his group planned to ski at the Breckenridge and Keystone
resorts using the Epic pass.

The Epic Pass is a pre-paid card. Full payment allows users
unlimited skiing for the entire ski season. In the case of the
2019-20 ski season, the card was good from October 15 to April 15.

Vail Resorts, which owns both ski areas along with Vail and Beaver
Creek, announced a week-long closure on March 14th due to
coronavirus concerns. Colorado's governor passed an executive order
that night asking all of the state's ski resorts to follow suit.

The state had 100 cases and one death attributed to COVID-19 at
that time.

Three days later, Breckenridge operators said its resort would
close for the remainder of the season.

Clarke's family members were not able to ski due to the closures.
The lawsuit claims Vail Resorts has breached its contract with
customers by not offering refunds.

"To date, Defendant has not refunded any consumers for their lost
mountain resort access," the complaint states. "Rather, for annual
pass-holders, Defendant has simply deferred all auto-renewal
charges and spring deadlines (for those people that did not pre-pay
for the entire season). Further, for Epic Day Pass customers,
Defendant has explicitly stated that, despite Defendant's closures,
the passes are ‘non-refundable and non-transferable to another
season.' Accordingly, customers who did not have a chance to use
all of their purchased passes under the Epic Day Pass program get
zero consideration or compensation for their inability to use those
unused, purchased days, even if they wanted to."

The lawsuit claims the total funds lost by skiers from across the
country -- now potential fellow litigants -- will be in excess of
$5 million.

Vail Resorts spokesman Ryan Huff said the company would not comment
on pending litigation. But he did provide CBS4 a letter that was
sent to cardholders on March 25th.

"Over the last couple of weeks, we have seen the world take
numerous measures in an effort to contain the spread of COVID-19.
For Vail Resorts, that has meant closing all 34 of our North
American resorts. That difficult decision was necessary in order to
prioritize the health and wellbeing of our employees, our
communities and our guests. Since then, our focus has been on
supporting guests and employees in returning home, ensuring the
safety of everyone staying in our resorts, transitioning all of our
corporate services to "work from home," and now, today, closing our
call center due to stay-at-home orders.

"In the midst of all of this, I want you to know that we have not
forgotten about you, our pass holders. I have read your emails and
comments on social media. I completely understand your frustrations
and your concerns about this past season.

"We deeply value the loyalty you have placed with us by purchasing
one of our pass products and we are committed to identifying an
approach that acknowledges this past season and retains your
loyalty for the future. I ask for your continued patience and
understanding as we remain focused on the real-time challenges that
COVID-19 is currently presenting to our employees, our communities
and our company. And with many different pass products, we want to
ensure that any action takes into consideration all of our pass
holders.

"We intend to reach back out to you with more information by the
end of April. In the meantime, we are deferring all auto-renew
charges and all spring deadlines for Buddy Tickets into May.

"We sincerely hope that all of you, your friends and your loved
ones remain safe during this unprecedented time and that the world
comes together to move past the challenges we currently face."

Sincerely,
Kirsten Lynch
EVP and Chief Marketing Officer
Vail Resorts

No trial date has been set for the lawsuit.

Vail Resorts is currently selling its 20-21 ski season Epic Pass
online. The adult price is $979.

Copper Mountain, Winter Park and Arapahoe Basin resorts are facing
a similar lawsuit from users of the Ikon ski pass. [GN]


VALARIS PLC: Continues to Defend Zhang Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Valaris PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit initiated by Xiaoyuan Zhang.

On August 20, 2019, plaintiff Xiaoyuan Zhang, a purported Valaris
shareholder, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Valaris
shareholders against Valaris plc and certain of our executive
officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws.

The complaint cites general statements in press releases and SEC
filings and alleges that the defendants made false or misleading
statements or failed to disclose material information regarding the
performance of our ultra-deepwater segment, among other things.

The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a class of investors who
purchased Valaris plc shares between April 11, 2019 and July 31,
2019.

Under applicable law, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.

The company anticipates that an amended complaint will be filed in
the second quarter of 2020.

Valaris said, "We strongly disagree and intend to vigorously defend
against these claims. At this time, we are unable to predict the
outcome of these matters or the extent of any resulting
liability."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Valaris PLC provides offshore contract drilling services. The
Company owns, operates, and manages rig fleets and provides
drilling services. Valaris serves customers globally. The company
is based in London, England.


VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Johnson Fistel Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating
potential violations of the federal securities laws by Velocity
Financial, Inc. ("Velocity" or "the Company") (NYSE: VEL).

On or about January 22, 2020, Velocity sold 7,250,000 shares of
stock in its initial public stock offering (the "IPO"), at $13.00 a
share raising $94,250,000 in new capital. However, since the IPO,
Velocity stock has plunged, on April 24, 2020, the stock closed at
$3.09.

Specifically, Johnson Fistel's investigation seeks to determine
whether the Company's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with its January 2020 IPO and subsequent
investor communications contained untrue statements of material
facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made therein not misleading concerning the Company's
business, and operations.

If you have information that could assist in this investigation, or
if you are a Velocity shareholder and are interested in learning
more about the investigation or your legal rights and remedies,
please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471.
If emailing, please include a phone number.

                  About Johnson Fistel, LLP

Johnson Fistel, LLP, is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes. [GN]


VENTURE GLOBAL: Troia Sues Over Failure to Provide COBRA Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Troia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VENTURE GLOBAL ENGINEERING, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-11197-BAF-RSW (E.D. Mich., May 14, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1985, by failing to provide a COBRA notice that complies
with the law.

Despite having access to the Department of Labor's Model COBRA
form, Venture chose not to use the model form to send timely
notice--presumably to save Venture money because COBRA coverage is
inherently expensive for employers, according to the complaint. The
failure to provide a timely COBRA notice misled the Plaintiff and
caused the Plaintiff economic injuries in the form of lost health
insurance and unpaid medical bills, as well as informational
injuries.

Simply put, the Defendant's failure to provide a timely COBRA
notice violates the law, the Plaintiff contends. Rather than
including all information required by law in a single notice
"written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average
plan participant," the Defendant failed to provide any timely COBRA
notification to allow him to make an informed decision within the
statutory time period about his healthcare options for him and his
family, the Plaintiff asserts.

As a result of the violation, which threatens Class Members'
ability to maintain their health coverage, the Plaintiff seeks
statutory penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses, and other appropriate relief as set forth herein and
provided by law.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant and was covered
based on his health plan through the Defendant.

The Defendant is a corporation with its headquarters in Michigan
and is the plan sponsor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER, LLP
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312.283.3814
          Fax: 773.496.8617
          Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com

               - and -

          Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
          DAPEER LAW, P.A.
          300 S. Biscayne Blvd., #2704
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-610-5223
          Email: rachel@dapeer.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: (305) 975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


VIEWRAY INC: Continues to Defend Plymouth County Retirement Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ViewRay, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Plymouth County Retirement
Assoc. v. ViewRay, Inc., et al.,

On September 13, 2019, a class action complaint for violation of
federal securities laws was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio against the Company, its chief executive
officer, chief scientific officer and former chief financial
officer.

On December 19, 2019, the court appointed Plymouth County
Retirement Association as the lead plaintiff and on February 28,
2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting
securities fraud claims against ViewRay, its chief executive
officer, chief operating officer, chief scientific officer, and its
former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer,


Now captioned Plymouth County Retirement Assoc. v. ViewRay, Inc.,
et al., the amended complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all
purchasers of our common stock between May 10, 2018 until January
13, 2020, alleges that we violated federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading statements that failed to
disclose adverse facts concerning the Company's business,
operations, and financial results and seeks damages, interest, and
other relief.

ViewRay said, "We believe the allegations in the complaint are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend the litigation."

ViewRay, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets radiation therapy
systems. The company offers MRIdian, a magnetic resonance
image-guided radiation therapy system to image and treat cancer
patients. Its MRIdian integrates MRI technology, radiation
delivery, and proprietary software to see the soft tissues, shape
the dose to accommodate for changes in anatomy, and strike the
target using real-time targeting throughout the treatment. ViewRay,
Inc. serves university research and teaching hospitals, community
hospitals, private practices, government institutions, and
freestanding cancer centers. The company markets its MRIdian
through a direct sales force in North America. ViewRay, Inc. was
founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Oakwood, Ohio.


VILORE FOODS: Falsely Labels Kern's Beverage Products, Gross Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Gross and Deborah Levin, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. VILORE FOODS COMPANY, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-00894-DMS-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 13, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant's juices and juice-based beverage products under the
brand name "Kern's" are all misbranded and falsely advertised.

The Defendant distributes, advertises, markets, and sells a variety
of juices and juice-based beverage products, including juice-based
beverage products labeled "Guava Nectar", "Apricot Nectar", and
"Peach Nectar" (the "Products").

The Kern's brand is owned in the United States by Grupo Jumex, S.A.
de C.V., a Mexico corporate entity. The Products are packaged in
Mexico and imported to the United States. Under U.S. law, every
food product imported into the U.S. must identify on the product's
package the full legal name and address of either the product
manufacturer or the U.S. distributor for consumer contact and
liability purposes. Vilore, a Texas corporation, is identified on
the Product labels as the U.S. distributor.

The Products' labeling is false and misleading and violated U.S.
Food and Drug Administration regulations, according to the
complaint. The Products are labeled as if they are flavored only
with natural ingredients when the Products in fact contain
undisclosed artificial flavors in violation of state and federal
law. The Products are misbranded under federal law as well as
California and other states' laws. The distribution of misbranded
products in interstate commerce violates federal law, and
corresponding state consumer protection laws. Vilore is liable
under U.S. law for distributing the misbranded Products, the
Plaintiffs contend.

The Plaintiffs seek an order compelling the Defendant to, inter
alia: cease distributing, advertising and selling the Products in
violation of U.S. and California and other states' consumer
protection law; re-label or recall all existing deceptively
packaged Products; conduct a corrective advertising campaign to
fully inform California and other states' consumers; award the
Plaintiffs and other Class-members restitution, actual damages, and
punitive damages; and pay all costs of suit, expenses, and attorney
fees.

The Plaintiffs purchased one or more of the Products multiple times
in California for personal and household consumption.

The Defendant advertises, markets, distributes, and sells the
Products in California and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
          Lilach Halperin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Phone: (619) 696-9006
          Fax: (619) 564-6665
          Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                 mike@consumersadvocates.com
                 lilach@consumersadvocates.com

               - and -

          David Elliot, Esq.
          ELLIOT LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          3200 Fourth Avenue, Suite 207
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Phone: (858) 228-7997
          Email: davidelliot@elliotfirm.com


VITOL INC: Faces Bogard Construction Consumer Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bogard Construction, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. VITOL INC.; SK ENERGY AMERICAS, INC.; and SK
TRADING INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD., Case No. 3:20-cv-03267 (N.D. Cal.,
May 13, 2020), is brought for damages, restitution, and injunctive
relief against the Defendants for their violations of the
California Cartwright Act, and the California Unfair Competition
Law.

Competing gasoline trading firms Vitol, SK Energy, and SK Trading
and certain of their employees consciously agreed to a common
scheme throughout the class period jointly manipulating the spot
market for gasoline formulated for use in California and in certain
gasoline blending components used in that gasoline, according to
the complaint. Their unlawful, concerted conduct to manipulate the
spot price for gasoline violated the Cartwright Act and the UCL,
and caused retail gasoline prices paid by the Plaintiff and all
California consumers to be higher than they would have been.

All told, the Plaintiff says, California consumers have paid
billions of dollars more at the pump than they would have absent
the Defendants' unlawful conduct. On May 4, 2020, the Defendants'
conduct became known for the first time to the Plaintiff and the
Class when the California Attorney General filed a partially
redacted complaint ("AG Complaint") against the Defendants for
violations of the Cartwright Act and the UCL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased tens of thousands of dollars of gasoline at
retail during the Class Period.

Vitol Inc., a Delaware corporation, is an energy company with its
principal place of business in Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 433-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
          Email: jtabacco@bermantabacco.com
                 tseaver@bermantabacco.com


VMWARE INC: Deadline on Lead Plaintiff Motion Set for June 1
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on April 26 disclosed that class
action has been commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
VMware Inc. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

VMware, Inc. (VMW)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/vmware-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=6185&wire=1

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 1, 2020

Class Period: March 30, 2019 to February 27, 2020

Allegations against VMW include that: (i) VMware's reporting with
respect to its backlog of unfilled orders was not in compliance
with all relevant accounting and disclosure requirements; (ii) the
foregoing subjected the Company to a foreseeable risk of heightened
regulatory scrutiny and/or investigation; and (iii) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel.: 212-425-1140
Fax.:866-699-3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


VMWARE INC: Thornton Law Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Thornton Law Firm LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed on
behalf of shareholders of VMware Inc.(VMW). VMW investors who
purchased VMW securities between March 30, 2019 and February 27,
2020, that are interested to serve as a lead plaintiff are
encouraged to visit https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/VMW. Shareholders
may also contact the Thornton Law Firm at shareholder@tenlaw.com,
or call 617-531-3917. There is no minimum number of shares required
to be a class member, and at this time, and shareholders do not
need to be a lead plaintiff to recover as a class member.
International and derivative investors of VMW are encouraged to
contact Thornton Law Firm LLP to discuss their lead plaintiff
options.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/VMW

Interested VMW shareholders have until June 1, 2020 to apply to be
a lead plaintiff. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal
securities laws, and the class has not yet been certified. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member. There is no minimum number of shares required to be a class
member.

VMware provides software in the areas of hybrid cloud, multi-cloud,
modern applications, networking and security, and digital
workspaces in the United States and internationally, and sells its
products through distributors, resellers, system vendors, and
systems integrators.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, the suit alleges Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) VMware's
reporting with respect to its backlog of unfilled orders was not in
compliance with all relevant accounting and disclosure
requirements; (ii) the foregoing subjected the Company to a
foreseeable risk of heightened regulatory scrutiny and/or
investigation; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

It is alleged that on February 27, 2020, during after-market hours,
VMWare filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), disclosing an SEC investigation
into the Company's backlog of unfilled orders. Specifically, the
suit states that the Form 8-K advised investors: "In December 2019,
the staff of the Enforcement Division of the [SEC] requested
documents and information related to VMware's backlog and
associated accounting and disclosures." The Form 8-K also allegedly
advised investors that "VMware is fully cooperating with the SEC's
investigation," but was "unable to predict the outcome of this
matter at this time."

On this news, VMware's stock price fell $15.11 per share, or
11.14%, to close at $120.52 per share on February 28, 2020.

Investors who are interested in serving as a lead plaintiff who
purchased at least 1,000 shares of VMW stock (VMW) are encouraged
to contact the Thornton Law Firm's shareholder rights team at
http://www.tenlaw.com/cases/VMW,by email at
shareholder@tenlaw.com, or calling 617-531-3917 to discuss the lead
plaintiff process.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/VMW

Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing individual shareholders and institutional investors in
recovering damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its
attorneys have established track records litigating securities
cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on
behalf of shareholders.

Contact:

         Thornton Law Firm LLP
         State Street Financial Center
         1 Lincoln Street
         Boston, MA 02111
         https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/VMW [GN]


WASHINGTON: Didier Sues Gov. Inslee Over Civil Rights Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
CLINT DIDIER, LISA THOMAS, TIM EYMAN, LAWANDA JOY HATCH, DEAN
WELLSFRY, PATTY DETRO, and JASON BERNICA, and OTHER NONESSENTIAL
WASHINGTONIANS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. JAY INSLEE, in his capacity as
Governor of the state of Washington, Case No. 3:20-cv-05408-BHS
(W.D. Wash., May 1, 2020), is brought against Washington Governor
Jay Inslee for violation of the Declaration of Independence, the
Articles and Amendments of the Constitution, and the Constitution
of the State of Washington, in connection to his executive order
allegedly restricting and denying the liberty of all Washingtonians
and violating the civil rights of the discreet class of
Plaintiffs.

On March 23, 2020, Governor Inslee announced "Stay Home, Stay
Healthy" order citing authority granted to him under RCW 38.08, RCW
38.5 and RCW 43.06.220.

The Plaintiffs contend that there is no constitutional authority
granted to the Governor to declare limited martial law, or to grant
the powers provided for in RCW 38.08.030, 38.52.050, 43.06.220(b),
43.06.220(f), or 43.06.220(b). They allege that their liberty and
civil have been denied and restricted by Gov. Inslee's Executive
Order.

The Plaintiffs are all residents of the state of Washington. Mr.
Didier, as a class representative, is the Chairman of the Franklin
County Republican Party. Ms. Thomas is a nurse working in Franklin
County. Tim Eyman is a political activist. LaWanda Joy Hatch is a
Wedding Designer and Planner. Dean Wellsfry is the owner of
Shakey's Pizza Parlor. Patty DeTro is the owner of a Beauty Salon
in Okanogan County. Jason Bernica is the owner of an auto
dealership in Okanogan County.

Jay Inslee is the Governor of the State of Washington, residing in
Thurston County, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen Pidgeon, Esq.
          1523 132nd Street SE, Suite C350
          Everett, WA 98208
          Telephone: 425-347-7513
          E-mail: Stephen.pidgeon@comcast.net


WEST BLOOMFIELD, MI: Dismissal of Logan Enrichment Claim Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEVIN LOGAN, Individually and on Behalf of All others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF
WEST BLOOMFIELD, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 333452 (Mich. App.),
the Court of Appeals of Michigan vacated the circuit court's
partial summary disposition order in relation to the Plaintiffs'
unjust enrichment claim.

The Plaintiffs brought a self-styled class-action suit against West
Bloomfield Charter Township, challenging fees levied by the
township's building division and raising both equitable and legal
claims (Logan I).  The Plaintiffs' putative class action complaint
against West Bloomfield Charter Township alleges that the
township's building division charged excessive fees, generated a
profit, and deposited the extra money in the township general fund
to finance other operations.  The class representative asserted
that he and others were forced to pay into the illegal municipal
enterprise when applying for building permits.  

Through the system, the Plaintiffs alleged, the township violated
the Stille-DeRossett-Hale single state construction code act
("CCA").  The Plaintiffs alleged that the township also violated
the Headlee Amendment by charging fees that exceeded the reasonable
cost of its building division services as the fees had the effect
of a tax increase that was not authorized by a majority of the
electorate.

The Plaintiffs ultimately raised four counts in their complaint:
(1) statutory violation of the CCA, (2) violation of the Headlee
Amendment, (3) unjust enrichment premised on the township's
violation of the CCA, and (4) a request for permanent injunctive
relief against imposition of the challenged fees.

The circuit court summarily dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint in
part upon the township's motion. The court dismissed the class
Plaintiffs' and Logan's individual Headlee Amendment claims arising
before Sept. 16, 2014, on statute of limitations grounds pursuant
to MCR 2.116(C)(7).  The Plaintiffs do not challenge the ruling.

The township contended that the Plaintiffs' claims for unjust
enrichment and for violation of the CCA were derived from the
Headlee Amendment Claim and therefore were also time barred.  The
Plaintiffs retorted that the claims were distinct causes of action
requiring different proofs.  The circuit court avoided deciding the
issue, ruling instead that there is no private cause of action for
a refund or damages under the CCA according to the plain language
of the act and that there is no cause of action for unjust
enrichment arising out of the Headlee Amendment violation.

In relation to the latter, the court ruled that equitable relief
was precluded in the Plaintiffs' Headlee Amendment claim because
there is already a fully, complete, and adequate legal remedy.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the CCA and unjust enrichment
claims under MCR 2.116(C)(8).  Only the Plaintiffs' request for
injunctive relief to prevent future excessive fees remained.

The Court granted leave to appeal limited to the issue of whether
the circuit court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claim premised on the township's alleged violation of
the CCA (not the Headlee Amendment as incorrectly posited in the
circuit court's opinion) pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8).   

The Plaintiffs contend that the circuit court erred because: (1)
they were permitted to plead alternative and inconsistent causes of
action, and (2) the circuit court incorrectly ruled that plaintiffs
were precluded from raising a claim of unjust enrichment premised
on MCL 125.1522(1) where that statute did not expressly provide a
legal remedy for violations of its provisions.

The Appellate Court finds that the current matter is similar to
Genesee Co Drain Comm'r v Genesee Co, in that while the Plaintiffs
in both actions do seek money from the Defendants, the money is not
meant as compensation.  Rather, the Plaintiffs in the instant
action, like the plaintiff in Genesee Co, seek the return of monies
paid over to the Defendant that should not have been charged in the
first instance and therefore was unjustly held by the Defendant.
Requesting the return of the funds was not a tort or contract
action, but an action to divest the township of benefits unjustly
retained.  As the relief sought is equitable in nature, the claim
is not barred by Mich Ass'n of Home Builders v City of Troy.
Accordingly, the Appellate Court again concludes that the circuit
court improperly dismissed the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment
claim.

The Appellate Court ultimately concluded in Logan I that MCL
125.1522(1) of the CCA did not preclude a plaintiff from raising an
unjust enrichment claim relating to a violation of the statute.
The Appellate Court further held that under the court rules, the
Plaintiffs could raise inconsistent claims in their complaint --
one for unjust enrichment in relation to a violation of the CCA and
one for a legal remedy in relation to a violation of the Headlee
Amendment.

The Appellate Court vacated the summary disposition judgment in
relation to the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim, and remanded
for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion.  The Appellate
Court does not retain jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Feb. 18, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/tQtufb from Leagle.com.

LESLIE ANNE LOGAN -- leslie@loganassociates.com --for KEVIN W.
LOGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant.

VAHAN C. VANERIAN, MARK S. ROBERTS, for TOWNSHIP OF WEST BLOOMFIELD
CHARTER, Defendant-Appellee.

GREGORY D. HANLEY, for KICKHAM HANLEY PLLC, Amicus Curiae.


WESTCHESTER SURPLUS: Restaurant Files Suit on Insurance Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS: Faces Class Action Over Insurance Coverage

David J. Neal, writing for The Miami Herald, reports that a Fort
Lauderdale restaurant's federal class action lawsuit says its
comprehensive insurance coverage includes the losses it has
suffered during the novel coronavirus restaurant dining shutdown,
but the insurer won't pay.

The lawsuit involves IT! italy Ristorante and Bar, 500 E. Las Olas
Blvd., insurance company Westchester Surplus Lines and
Westchester's parent, insurance colossus Chubb Limited. But, as a
federal class action, the result likely will ripple with waves on
which businesses will surf to shore or wipeout.

"There's a sense of urgency here," said Steve Zack of Boies
Schiller Flexner. Government is trying to do its part. The
insurance industry, Chubb in particular, needs to do its part.
These small businesses need them to honor their contracts. It's not
just them. If you can't open your business, you can't pay your
employees, you can't pay your landlord, he can't pay his
mortgage."

Zack and Steven Marks -- smarks@podhurst.com -- of Podhurt Orseck
filed the suit April 9 for Cafe International Holding Company,
owner of IT! Italy.

Cafe International says it bought a policy from Chubb via
Westchester that provided "business interruption coverage." The
suit claims, Cafe International bought extra coverage on top of
that in case the loss was "caused by the action of a civil
authority prohibiting access to the restaurant."

State and municipal edicts closed restaurants in March, thus, by
the restaurant's theory, kicking in the extra coverage. The policy
doesn't specifically mention "coronavirus," "COVID-19" or
"pandemic."

The lawsuit argues what isn't said cuts both ways. Since 2006, the
lawsuit says, there has been boiler plate insurance policy language
used to exclude damages from "any virus, bacterium or other
microorganism that induces or is capable of inducing physical
distress, illness or disease."

That wasn't in this policy, the suit says.

"Plaintiff's policy does not contain any exclusion which would
apply to allow Defendants to deny coverage for losses caused by
COVID-19 and related actions of civil authorities taken in response
to COVID-19," the suit argues. "Accordingly, because the policy is
an all-risk policy and does not specifically exclude the losses
that Plaintiff has suffered, those losses are covered."

A Chubb email to the Miami Herald said, "As a matter of policy,
Chubb does not comment on client claims or pending legal matters,"
but Chubb CEO Evan Greenberg told CNBC he thought making insurers
pay up on the above reasoning is "unconstitutional."

Greenberg used that word on the theory that ruling pandemics are
covered would be a change of contract because pandemics never were
meant to be implied in the contract. The other things that would
cause business interruption coverage to kick in are finite, he
said, while pandemic losses are the opposite.

"So the only one who could really take the infinite nature,
financial nature, of that is the government," he said. "The
insurance industry has $800 billion in capital and that's to
support all the normal risks we insure, plus the catastrophe events
. . . we may incur in one year." [GN]


WICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY: Faces Bahnmaier Class Suit in D. Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wichita State
University. The case is styled as Michael R. Bahnmaier,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Wichita State University, Case No. 2:20-cv-02246-JAR-TJJ (D. Kan.,
May 14, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as other personal property for breach
of contract.

Wichita State University is a public research university in
Wichita, Kansas. The University is governed by the Kansas Board of
Regents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erin D. Lawrence, Esq.
          Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq.
          BOULWARE LAW, LLC
          1600 Genessee Street, Suite 416
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Phone: (816) 492-2826
          Email: erin@boulware-law.com
                 brandon@boulware-law.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN AND SHEERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: (405) 235-1560
          Fax: (405) 239-2112
          Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com


WILLIS TOWERS: Kent Securities Suit Challenges Acquisition by Aon
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kent, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. WILLIS TOWERS WATSON PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, ANNA C.
CATALANO, VICTOR F. GANZI, JOHN J. HALEY, WENDY E. LANE, BRENDAN R.
O'NEILL, JAYMIN B. PATEL, LINDA D. RABBITT, PAUL THOMAS, WILHELM
ZELLER, and AON PLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00641-UNA (D. Del., May 14,
2020), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Willis
Towers will be acquired by Aon plc.

On March 9, 2020, Willis Towers Watson's Board of Directors caused
the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Aon.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Willis Towers
Watson's stockholders will receive 1.08 newly issued Class A
ordinary shares of Aon for each share of Willis Towers Watson
common stock they own.

On May 11, 2020, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy
Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
Proxy Statement.

According to the complaint, the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading. The Proxy Statement omits
material information regarding the Company's, Aon's, and the
combined company's financial projections. The Proxy Statement also
omits material information regarding the analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisor in connection with the Proposed
Transaction, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC.

The omissions and false and misleading statements in the Proxy
Statement are material in that a reasonable stockholder will
consider them important in deciding how to vote on the Proposed
Transaction, the Plaintiff contends. The Proxy Statement is an
essential link in causing the Plaintiff and the Company's
stockholders to approve the Proposed Transaction, and because of
the false and misleading statements in the Proxy Statement, the
Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with irreparable harm, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Willis Towers Watson common stock.

Willis Towers Watson is a global advisory, broking, and solutions
company that designs and delivers solutions that manage risk,
optimize benefits, cultivate talent, and expand the power of
capital to protect and strengthen institutions and
individuals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
                 gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Phone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          Email: rm@maniskas.com


WW GRAINGER: Winegard Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against W.W. Grainger, Inc.
The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. W.W. Grainger, Inc. doing business as:
www.grainger.com, Case No. 1:20-cv-02191 (E.D.N.Y., May 14, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

W.W. Grainger, Inc., distributes maintenance, repair, and operating
supplies, and related information to the commercial, industrial,
contractor, and institutional markets in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 415-0100
          Fax: (516) 706-6631
          Email: msegal@segallegal.com


ZOOM VIDEO: Rosen Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ:ZM) between
April 18, 2019 and April 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Zoom investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Zoom class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1833.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) Zoom had inadequate data privacy and security measures; (2)
contrary to Zoom's assertions, the Company's video communications
service was not end-to-end encrypted; (3) as a result of all the
foregoing, users of Zoom's communications services were at an
increased risk of having their personal information accessed by
unauthorized parties, including Facebook; (4) usage of the
Company's video communications services was foreseeably likely to
decline when the foregoing facts came to light; and (5) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 8,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1833.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact

         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Rosen Law Firm
         Toll free: 866-767-3653
         E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013.  Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors. [GN]


ZURICH AMERICAN: Big Red Sues Over Denial of Claim for COVID Loss
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Big Red Management Corp., on behalf of Itself and all others
similarly situated v. Zurich American Insurance Company, Case No.
2:20-cv-02113-KSM (E.D. Pa., May 1, 2020), alleges that Big Red has
suffered business losses for which coverage is afforded under its
Property Portfolio Protection, General Liability Coverage and
Business Automobile, Business Protection Policies, issued by Zurich
in connection with the current coronavirus pandemic and the civil
actions taken by governmental authorities in efforts to quell the
COVID-19 Pandemic.

As a consequence of the Pandemic (including specifically damage to
property caused by the coronavirus), and the various Orders issued
in the Commonwealth, the Plaintiff and the Additional Insureds have
suffered Covered Losses under the Policy. The Defendants have,
however, wrongfully repudiated coverage under the Policy for such
Covered Losses suffered by the Plaintiff and the Additional
Insureds, the Plaintiff contends.

On March 16, 2020, the City of Philadelphia announced the closure
of non-essential businesses, including restaurants like the
Plaintiff. On March 22, 2020, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney issued
an Emergency Order Temporarily Prohibiting Operation of
Non-Essential Businesses and Congregation of Persons to
Prevent the Spread of 2019 Novel Coronavirus.

The Plaintiff purchased policy CPO-0171641-05, effective July 1,
2019, to July 1, 2020. This was a renewal from policy
CPO-0171641-04. The Plaintiff purchased the Business Protection
Policies issued by Zurcich paying a total premium in excess of
$300,000, says the complaint.

The Defendant offers a range of insurance coverage for businesses
of all sizes, ranging from midsized businesses to global
conglomerates.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
          Melissa Mazur, Esq.
          KAUFMAN COREN & RESS P.C.
          2001 Market Street, Ste. 3900
          Philadelphia PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735- 8700
          E-mail: dgross@kcr-law.com

               - and -

          Keith M. Fleischman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Glatter, Esq.
          FLEISCHMAN BONNER & ROCCO LLP
          81 Main Street, Suite 515
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 278-5100
          Facsimile: (917) 591-5245
          E-mail: kfleischman@fbrllp.com
                  jglatter@fbrllp.com


[*] UK Dentists to Sue Insurers Over Business Interruption Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael O'Dwyer, writing for Telegraph, reports that more than
2,000 dentists are threatening to sue their insurers as a refusal
to pay out on business interruption claims puts one in five
practices at risk of collapse.

The nationwide lockdown has forced dentists to shut -- and 20pc of
them fear they will run out of cash within a month, according to a
survey by the British Dental Association (BDA).

Dentists are among the few high street operators not able to claim
for business rates relief, and have warned they are now under
massive financial pressure after being barred from claiming on
insurance too.

More than three-quarters of self-employed dentists do not qualify
for temporary government support because they earn more than
GBP50,000 a year, the BDA found. [GN]


[^] WEBINAR: Best Practices in Qualifying the Class
---------------------------------------------------
Beard Group, Inc. is hosting a webinar for plaintiff practitioners
on client intake for mass torts and class actions on Thurs., May
28
at 2 p.m. Eastern Time.

Register FREE at bit.ly/2KqkcIV

Lead generation is just half the battle. You still have to win
over
the client. Register now and learn the following:

     -- Primary elements in responding to a lead
     -- How to customize scripts for case, demographics
     -- Developing effective screening criteria
     -- Tactics in converting leads to plaintiffs on first
        contact
     -- Minimize lead loss
     -- Publicity vs. conversion budgets

Benefits:

     -- Optimize your marketing budget's ROI
     -- Maximize the size of your class
     -- Reduce acquisition cost per client

Tom Ball, Senior Vice President at Alert Communications, will
present what his company has learned after completing millions of
new client intakes for law firms and legal marketing agencies.

Thurs., May 28
2 p.m. Eastern
Register FREE at bit.ly/2KqkcIV


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***